Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/3753836/United-States-Judicial-Conference-Misconduct-Complaint
Timestamp: 2017-05-26 14:28:57
Document Index: 72086879

Matched Legal Cases: ['§351', '§372', '§351', '§1981', '§1981', '§ 636']

United States Judicial Conference Misconduct Complaint | United States Federal Judge | Lawsuit
ScribdExploreEXPLORE BY INTERESTSCareer & MoneyBusiness Biography & HistoryEntrepreneurshipLeadership & MentoringMoney ManagementTime ManagementPersonal GrowthHappinessPsychologyRelationships & ParentingReligion & SpiritualitySelf-ImprovementPolitics & Current AffairsPoliticsSocietyScience & TechScienceTechHealth & FitnessFitnessNutritionSportsWellnessLifestyleArts & LanguagesFashion & BeautyFood & WineHome & GardenTravelEntertainmentCelebrity Biography & MemoirPop CultureBiographies & HistoryBiography & MemoirHistoryFictionChildren’s & YAClassic LiteratureContemporary FictionHistorical FictionLGBTQ FictionMystery, Thriller & CrimeRomanceScience Fiction & FantasyBROWSE BY CONTENT TYPEBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicUploadSign inJoinOptionsJoinSign InUploadUnited States Judicial Conference Misconduct ComplaintUploaded by mmasonUnited States Federal JudgeLawsuitComplaintUnited States Magistrate JudgeJudiciaries5.0 (1)DownloadEmbedDescription: A complaint was sent directly to the Judicial Conference,Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability on April 1, 2008. This is a Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act Complaint filed against U.S...View MoreA complaint was sent directly to the Judicial Conference,Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability on April 1, 2008. This is a Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act Complaint filed against U.S. Dist Judge Donald L. Graham pursuant to 28, U.S.C §351.et.al. This complaint is but a mere part of an overall pattern and practice of arbitrarily and deliberately disregarding prevailing legal standards and thereby causing expense and delay by U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham. There are a series of these complaints: 01-0054, 01-0068,02-0006,02-0052, 02-0059,05-0008, 05-0011, 05-0012, 05-0013, 05-0020, 05-0021 and others. These Complaints also have the order of the Chief Judge. J.L. Edmondson attached, who summarily dismissed the complaints. These complaints allege egregious misconduct that is easily verified by following the links embedded in the document. These allegations of misconduct include but are not limited to the following: •Lying and intentionally misrepresenting law. •Refusing to rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction that had been pending for more than 19 months. •Judge Graham falsely completed a Civil Justice Reform Act Report, "CJRA" to conceal the fact that he had a motion for a preliminary injunction pending for more than 17 months. •Allowing scores of motions and filings to languish without being decided. •Usurping legal authority. •Allowing a Magistrate to issue an injunction prohibiting direct communication with the Highlands County Government. Additionally, prohibiting Marcellus Mason from making public records request under Florida Law directly to Highlands County. •Violating clearly established law and the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court by issuing pre-filing injunctions. •Abuse of the criminal contempt procedure. Judge Graham made up a contempt charge out of "whole cloth". Judge Graham took a clearly void sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction and insisted that this order be made the subject of a contempt complaint and conviction. •Judge Graham used the criminal contempt process to force the withdrawal of a lawsuit. •Judge Graham made a massive award of $200,000 in legal fees using this clearly void sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction. •Lying and intentionally misrepresenting material facts in order to support the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction. •Judge Graham attempted to circumvent the appellate process by using intimidation. •Ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court denying access to the courts by refusing to state any reason for denying IFP applications. •In Case No. 01-14310, Judge Graham lied when his court stated that a “judicial finding of lawful discharge” had been made. •Judge Graham ignored clearly established law and binding precedent in applying res judicata to a cause of action that did not arise until well after the former lawsuit was filed and the case was closed. •In Case No. 01-14230, Judge Graham awarded attorney’s fees of $5340.00 in violation of clearly established law and due process. Similarly, more information regarding these complaints maybe found at http://mcneilmason.wordpress.com and http://mmason.freeshell.org. More Allegations of misconduct are fully set forth at http://mmason.freeshell.org/CoreAllegations.htm. Judge Edmondson is of the apparent belief that "legal error" is never misconduct. Judge Edmondson is alone in this view. See URL: http://mmason.freeshell.org/edmondson/edmondson.html or http://mmason.freeshell.org/372c/index.html. Judge Edmondson disagrees with his own Judicial Conference, Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability has stated: "[A] judge’s pattern and practice of arbitrarily and deliberately disregarding prevailing legal standards and thereby causing expense and delay to litigants may be misconduct. However, the characterization of such behavior as misconduct is fraught with dangers to judicial independence. Therefore, a cognizable misconduct complaint based on allegations of a judge not follCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentApril 1, 2008 214 Atterberry Drive Sebring, FL 33870 Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability Attn: Office of General Counsel Administrative Office of the United States Courts One Columbus Circle, NE 39 Washington, D.C. 20544 40 Re: Complaint of Misconduct, U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham Dear Sir/Madam: In order to more easily investigate this matter and keep costs down, this letter has been posted to the Internet at: URL, http://mmason.freeshell.org/JudicialConference.doc or http://mmason.freeshell.org/JudicialConference.htm . I am more than willing to supply documentation to prove any allegation raised here. Please feel free to contact me for any assistance in this matter. These are serious charges that if true, casts a pall over the integrity of the Federal Judiciary. Moreover, it is unfair to other judges to have Judge Graham get away with misconduct, while judges like Judge Manuel L. Real are sanctioned. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in his 2007 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary has stated that "[t]he Judiciary cannot tolerate misconduct. The public rightly expects the Judiciary to be fair but firm in policing its own." I have submitted multiple complaints of misconduct against Judge Donald L. Graham, S.D. Fla. to the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit and to the Chief Judge, primarily Judge J.L. Edmondson. These complaints have been dismissed wholesale without any investigation at all. It would appear that Judge Edmondson has defined judicial misconduct out of existence. Each complaint filed against Judge Graham can found at: http://mmason.freeshell.org/372c/ . The following complaints were submitted to the Judicial Council: 01-0054, 01-0068, 02-0052. As the statute changed from 28 U.S.C. §372(c) to §351, new complaints were filed 2005. [050008,05-0011,05-0012,05-0013,05-0020,05-0021]. These complaints may also be reached by clicking on their number at the homepage, http://mmason.freeshell.org. Judge Graham’s misconduct has managed to escape appellate review, both by way of mandamus and direct appeal. The Eleventh Circuit, without denying the allegations of misconduct has simply ignored the issues. It is inconceivable that a Court of Appeal would ignore a jurisdictional issue like whether the Judge should have disqualified or not, however the Eleventh Circuit has done just that. Among
other places, this fact is documented at : http://mcneilmason.wordpress.com , See post entitled Are Allegations of Misconduct Reviewable on Appeal? . I have setup a web portal, http://mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm , which takes the allegations of misconduct and shows the reader how they were disposed of either by lying or simply ignoring the issues. This page has a flowchart with clickable links. It traces the allegations of misconduct through the appellate process and through Section 351 complaints as well. This page was created so the reader could see the overall picture and the level of dishonesty involved. Given this matter is extraordinary, I would appreciate it if you would you use your authority to conduct an additional investigation or more accurately conduct an initial investigation since the Judicial Council has never conducted an investigation in the first place. In the alternative, I would appreciate if you would return the matter to the judicial council with directions to undertake an investigation. In an opinion publicly available on the Internet, you have stated: [A] judge’s pattern and practice of arbitrarily and deliberately disregarding prevailing legal standards and thereby causing expense and delay to litigants may be misconduct. However, the characterization of such behavior as misconduct is fraught with dangers to judicial independence. Therefore, a cognizable misconduct complaint based on allegations of a judge not following prevailing law or the directions of a court of appeals in particular cases must identify clear and convincing evidence of willfulness, that is, clear and convincing evidence of a judge's arbitrary and intentional departure from prevailing law based on his or her disagreement with, or willful indifference to, that law. http://www.uscourts.gov/library/judicialmisconduct/jcdopinions108.pdf :Pg. 8. The complaints submitted to the Judicial Council and to the Eleventh Circuit include, but is not limited to, included the following:
Lying and intentionally misrepresenting the law. See Documented Lie. Judge Graham told Marcellus Mason that he could not state a claim against a state actor, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners, under 42 U.S.C. §1981 while he was simultaneously allowing a represented Plaintiff in another case to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1981 against the very same state actor, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners. Involved in possible criminal behavior by issuing a void sua sponte pre-filing injunction which ultimately formed the basis of a criminal contempt complaint and conviction. See Framing An Innocent Person. Sua Sponte means on the Judges own motion and without notice and opportunity to respond prior to the issuance of the injunction. The law and Constitution requires such notice. In Weaver v. Sch. Bd., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8128 (unpublished) (11th Cir. 2006), the Court held that a litigant was entitled to “notice and an opportunity to be
heard” before a restriction was imposed on the litigant’s ability to challenge an injunction. “Generally, a judgment is void under Rule 60 (b) (4) “if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or if acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law. (emphasis added)” E.g.,Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2001). A void judgment is from its inception a legal nullity. U.S. v. Boch Oldsmobile 909 F.2d 657, 661 (1st Cir. 1990). It is incredible that the Eleventh Circuit has managed to avoid reviewing this sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction by all kinds of dishonest tricks. See http://mmason.freeshell.org/SuaSponte.htm# AppellateHistory. Judge Graham refused to rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction that had been pending for about 19 months. A motion for preliminary injunction was submitted on November 24, 1999, and Judge Graham never ruled on the motion despite repeated requests. See Docket and Entry #39. The case was closed on June 20, 2001. Even more incredible, the Eleventh Circuit, after 17 months stated that I didn’t have a right to have my motion decided. See http://mmason.freeshell.org/junklaw/NoRightToHaveMotionDecided.html or http://mcneilmason.wordpress.com/ , click on You Don’t have A Right to Have Your Motions Decided. Judge Graham used the contempt process and AUSA Robert Waters to force Marcellus Mason to drop an embarrassing lawsuit against Judge Graham. Marcellus Mason has offered to take a polygraph test under penalty of perjury and challenges Judge Graham to do the same. This offer to take a polygraph test has been sent by both letters and email to the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI. Additionally, Federal Public Defender, Leon Watts was a witness to the conversation. Incidentally, Mason declined to drop the lawsuit. Either Mason has committed a crime or Judge Graham has committed a crime! Both Mason and Judge Graham should be offered polygraph tests! Judge Graham used a void sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction to award attorney's fees of $200,000 against an indigent Plaintiff whom Judge Graham knew was unemployed. See Docket Entry No. 882 and 891. Judge Graham eschewed and rejected the law and the U.S. Supreme Court which states that attorney's fees may only be awarded against a Plaintiff if the lawsuit is found to be totally without merit. Judge Graham made no such finding because he could not due to the fact that he failed to evaluate pending summary judgment motions which set forth substantial facts supporting the lawsuit. Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC ,434 U.S. 412, 422 (1978)("a plaintiff should not be assessed his opponent's attorney's fees unless a court finds that his claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so."). Judge Graham falsely completed a Civil Justice Reform Act, CJRA, report in order to conceal the fact that he had failed to rule on the preliminary injunction motion mentioned above. See False CJRA Report. Motions pending for more than six months must be included in the CJRA report. When told of this fact in a Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act complaint, Judge J.L. Edmondson, Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, simply attacked Marcellus Mason. See Section 351 Complaint No. 05-008. Usurping legal authority by allowing a Federal Magistrate Judge, Frank Lynch Jr., to render an injunction in clear violation of law and 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A) which clearly states: Notwithstanding any provision of law to the
contrary-(A) a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court except a motion for injunction relief,…” Judge Graham has repeatedly refusing to cite legal authority for such an order. On direct appeal, Case No. 01-13664-A, the Eleventh simply refused to review this injunction for validity while it was quite willing to discuss the Plaintiff’s violation of the same. See http://mmason/0113664/OrderAffirmingTrialCourt/Opinion-OCR.htm#opinion . Usurping legal authority by allowing a Federal Magistrate Judge, Frank Lynch Jr., to render an injunction to prohibit lawful and protected out of court communication between a citizen and his government. See Docket Entry No. 201. On direct appeal, Case No. 01-13664-A, the Eleventh simply refused to review this injunction for validity while it was quite willing to discuss the Plaintiff’s violation of the same. See http://mmason/0113664/OrderAffirmingTrialCourt/Opinion-OCR.htm#opinion . Usurping legal authority by allowing a Federal Magistrate Judge, Frank Lynch Jr., to render an injunction placing restrictions on how public records are accessed under the Florida Public Records Act that the Florida Supreme Court has stated is not lawful. See Docket Entry No. 246. Judge Graham has refused to state where a federal judge gets the legal authority to administer public records under the Florida Public Records Act. On direct appeal, Case No. 0113664-A, the Eleventh simply refused to review this injunction for validity while it was quite willing to discuss the Plaintiff’s violation of the same. See http://mmason/01-13664/OrderAffirmingTrialCourt/Opinion-OCR.htm#opinion . Allowing scores of significant pre-trial motions to go undecided for months without taking any action. See Languishing Motions. This page list more than 30 filings, including summary judgment motions, that Judge Graham refused to act on. Judge Graham denied in forma pauperis petitions or petition to waive filing fees on at least ten separate for no reason. See History of Arbitrary IFP Denials. In spite of the statutes and the U.S. Supreme Court's edict that an in forma pauperis application can only be denied if the allegation of poverty is untrue or the action is frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992).
This matter is not untimely because you have 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. Pgs.8,9. The Eleventh Circuit has affirmed Judge Donald L. Graham on appeal using unpublished opinions while reversing and excoriating other federal judges at the Southern District of Florida and in the Circuit for the exact same set of facts. The links provided here and below will demonstrate that U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages, S.D. Fla., mmason.freeshell.org/WorldThrust.htm , U.S. District Judge John Antoon II, M.D. Fla., http://mmason.freeshell.org/collins.htm, U.S. District Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley, mmason.freeshell.org/martinez.htm ,S.D. Fla., U.S. District Judge Marvin H. Shoob, N. D. of Georgia,
mmason.freeshell.org/pleming.htm, all were reversed and excoriated on appeal while Judge Graham was affirmed for the exact same set of facts. Judge Graham’s record has been widely distributed via email campaigns and a mailing list that was composed of over 150,000 recipients on a least two occasions. Selected people have received information about Judge Graham on a daily basis. I have multiple websites which depicts Judge Graham’s record. Hundreds of letters and faxes have been sent out to attorneys and judges at all levels. All of my websites have been indexed by all the major Internet Search Engines like Google, Yahoo, MSN, ask.com, and others. Try searching by using “Judge Donald L. Graham.” It is going to be impossible to discipline other judges given Judge Graham’s record. This will build resentment in the judiciary because it shows favoritism and that Judge Graham is above the law. Judge Graham has never been asked to deny any of the above listed allegations. You need only ask Judge Graham to deny these allegations. Sincerely,
Documents Similar To United States Judicial Conference Misconduct ComplaintSkip carouselRubber World v NLRCEvidence full Text CasesNavida vs Dizon DigestDuterte vs. CA April 27, 1998 full caseSPS BENITEZ vs CA_Ejectment of Portion Encroached UponPrimer Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases-CIVIL ACTIONRules of Procedure for Envi Cases_PrimerGuttierez vs SantosCaribbean Transportation Systems, Inc. v. Autoridad De Las Navieras De Puerto Rico, Caribbean Transportation Systems, Inc. v. Autoridad De Las Navieras De Puerto Rico, 901 F.2d 196, 1st Cir. (1990)REPLY to opposition to motion re 34 MOTION to Dismiss filed by BOOKS-A-MILLION, INC..Judicial Confirmation CasesJudicial Confirmation CasesDRU 2 Motion for ReinstatementSiddiqi v. Westaff, Inc. et al - Document No. 613-cv-00360 Doc9Leville v. Grant, CUMcv-06-203 (Cumberland Super. Ct., 2007)Civil Procedure Cases Gurit v. HexcelAvMarkets v. Inventory Locator ServiceCanplas Industries v. InterVac Design et. al.Belen vs ChavezJurisdictionLitigation ProcessIndiana 1983 Civil Rights ComplaintPDFPhilip Joseph Twohy, Jr. v. The First National Bank of Chicago, 758 F.2d 1185, 1st Cir. (1985)Roa RagasaHOUSE HEARING, 113TH CONGRESS - AN EXAMINATION OF THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY SYSTEMSyllabus.legal Forms Sy2014Huafeng Xu v. Farkhanda Naqvi, 3rd Cir. (2013)Documents About United States Federal JudgeSkip carouselDonegan v. Dyson, 269 U.S. 49 (1925)FEDERAL JUDGE DAVID BURY IS A RUBBER STAMP FOR THE GOOD OLD BOYSU.S. 2nd Circuit Judicial RulesThe Changing Face of the Federal JudiciaryClarence A Beam Financial Disclosure Report for 2010Kathleen McDonald OMalley Financial Disclosure Report for 2009William R Wilson Jr Financial Disclosure Report for 2010Melendres # 1166 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1166Melendres #1415 | P Response to Arpaio Motion to Quash Zullo SubpoenaEddie Sandoval v. Ralph Lee Aaron, 562 F.2d 13, 10th Cir. (1977)Roberts v. Champion, 10th Cir. (2002)United States v. Lin Edward Davis, 926 F.2d 969, 10th Cir. (1991)United States v. Harold Lyons, 256 F.2d 749, 2d Cir. (1958)In ReEdwin Muth v. LSI Corp, 3rd Cir. (2011)Robert Nelson v., 3rd Cir. (2013)Shirley Hemphill v. Alex Beasley, Sheriff, Transylvania County, Brevard, North Carolina, 944 F.2d 901, 4th Cir. (1991)United States v. Kyle Gross, 4th Cir. (2011)United States v. Jason Kelly, 4th Cir. (2013)Bobby Abernethy v. Patrick Donahoe, 4th Cir. (2012)United States v. Sligh, 4th Cir. (2005)United States v. Theoharis Toumazatos, 4th Cir. (2013)United States v. Riley, 4th Cir. (2009)United States v. Kenneth Sergent, 4th Cir. (2014)Bush v. Martin, 4th Cir. (2000)Douglas Dunlap v. Texas Guaranteed, 4th Cir. (2015)United States v. Crisp, 4th Cir. (2011)Alexander v. District Court of Maryland, 4th Cir. (2008)Abood v. Atwood, 4th Cir. (1996)United States v. Winter, 4th Cir. (1997)More From mmasonSkip carouselState v CableFaq Citrus GreeningUs complaintJudicial ConferenceReconsiderationde201de24605-0021 order05-0020 order05-0013 order05-0012 order05-0011 order05-0008-Edmundsonde878