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/CoreAllegat ions.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/e dmondson.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 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."
These complaints prove that "judicial independence" as it is presently practiced does not work. Judge Graham has not been disciplined in any kind of way of his misconduct and abusive behavior.
(less)
