Open Letter to Judge Joel F. Dubina To Investigate Judge Donald L. Graham

Justice Turned On Its Head

Judge Donald L. Graham, The “Teflon Don“

Purpose of this Post

This entire blog or website, mcneilmason.wordpress.com, is dedicated to illustrating the extreme measures that judges at the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal have deployed to keep from disciplining U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham, “Teflon Don”, for abusive behavior and misconduct. The overall scheme of all methods (direct appeal, mandamus, lawsuit, misconduct complaints) of disciplining federal judges have been undermined and defeated by Judge Graham’s cohorts at the Eleventh Circuit, see http://mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm.  This post posts a letter that was sent to now Chief Judge Joel F. Dubina, Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal.

---

Open Letter To Judge Joel F. Dubina

December 22, 2009

United States Court Of Appeals

Attn:  Ed McElhenney

Eleventh Circuit

56 Forsyth Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Hon. Joel F. Dubina

This letter is posted to the Internet at: http://mcneilmason.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/open-letter-to-judge-joel-f-dubina-to-investigate-judge-donald-l-graham. This Court or rather Judge J.L. Edmondson received several complaints of judicial misconduct in 2008 leveled against U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham.:

1. Complaint dated June 25, 2008.
2. Complaint dated July 9, 2008.
3. Complaint dated July 15, 2008.
4. Complaint dated July 30, 2008.
5. A Request For Reconsideration of Prior Complaints.

I have received absolutely no communication regarding these complaints that were filed 2008.  What is the status of these complaints?  Have they been docketed?  Have they been investigated and disposed of?  I would appreciate it if you would provide me with the status of these complaints.   If these complaints need to be re-filed because you don’t have copies of them, please let me know.  These complaints document very specific allegations of misconduct such as lying and routinely disregarding clearly established law whenever Judge Graham feels like it.

Judge Edmondson has had a string of misconduct complaints leveled at Judge Graham where he did absolutely nothing.  See  No. 01-0054; No. 01-0054-Judicial Council; No. 01-0068; No. 01-68-Judicial Council; INTERVENING MANDAMUS; No. 02-0006; No. 02-0006 -Judicial Council; No. 02-0029; No. 02-0034; No. 02-0052; No. 02-0059; COMPLAINTS FILED IN 2005; No. 05-0008; No. 05-0011; No. 05-0012; No. 05-0013; No. 05-0020; No. 05-0021

What I want is fairly simple.  Firstly, I want the very specific allegations of misconduct that I have enumerated to be stated as either true or false in any ‘investigation” of my complaints.  Secondly, the very specific allegations that I have listed does or does not constitute judicial misconduct.   Judge Edmondson’s tactic was to erect a straw man and then attack the straw man.  Judge Edmondson characterized my allegations of misconduct in such a manner as to achieve his own nefarious ends and pre-determined outcome.  What the complaints are designed to do is to force the Judicial Council to state in writing what is and is not judicial misconduct.  Judge Edmondson and others has become the master of the negative definition.  A negative definition is a “definition which states what a thing is NOT rather than what it is.”  See http://mcneilmason.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/chief-circuit-judge-jl-edmondson-uses-perfect-scam-of-negative-defintion-to-defeat-complaints-of-misconduct-under-the-judicial-misconduct-and-disability-act/ for  illustrations of how this tactic is used.  The negative definition serves the interest of the fraternity of federal judges quite well, but it does not serve the interest of the American public.  Almost all state jurisdictions have positive definitions of judicial misconduct.

The Eleventh Circuit’s website covering complaints of judicial misconduct states:  “The law says that complaints about judges’ decisions and complaints with no evidence to support them must be dismissed. If you are a litigant in a case and believe the judge made a wrong decision—even a very wrong decision—you may not use this procedure to complain about the decision.”  To that extent that the above statement suggests that a federal judge’s “very wrong” decisions  can never be the subject of a complaint of judicial misconduct, the statement is at variance with the authority on such matters.   The statement and your predecessor, Judge . J.L. Edmondson’s behavior suggests that a federal judge may continually disregard clearly established law with impunity because such behavior can never be the subject of misconduct.  The Committee On Judicial Conduct And Disability disagrees and 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.

See Memorandum of Decision, Page 8, lines 6-17 , http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/misconduct/orders/committee_memorandum_89020.pdf or http://mmason.freeshell.org/372c/committee_memorandum_89020.pdf .

If Judge Edmondson’s and your website’s definition of judicial misconduct were to prevail, then a possible criminal act committed by Judge Graham should legally escape the judicial misconduct statutes.  On September 20, 2001, Judge Graham concocted a pre-filing injunction sua sponte.   This order specifically states: “THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte.” (D.E. #878, pg. 3 , http://mmason.freeshell.org/DE-878/de878.pdf .  Sua sponte issued pre-filing injunctions are routinely rejected as violative of due process.  See mmason.freeshell.org/RejectSuaSponte.htm .   Not only did Judge Graham disregard clearly established law, he also intentionally misrepresented the amount of lawsuits that I filed so that he could justify the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction so that an unsuspecting public would not know the truth.  See http://mcneilmason.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/judge-graham-missates-material-facts-and-law-to-support-pre-filing-injunction/ .  The Eleventh Circuit has set a Guiness world record for refusing to review this sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction for validity.   See http://mmason.freeshell.org/blog/sets_sets_guiness_world_record.htm or  Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sets Guiness World Record For Refusing to Review Sua Sponte Issued Pre-Filing Injunction at http://mcneilmason.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/eleventh-circuit-us-court-of-appeals-sets-guiness-world-record-for-refusing-to-review-sua-sponte-issued-pre-filing-injunction/ .  This sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction that the Eleventh Circuit has refused to review for validity has cost me: (1)41 days in jail for violation of an illegal order; (2)a criminal contempt conviction; (3) three years of probation.  The only reason I am off probation is because U.S.  Judge K. Michael could not stomach the injustice any longer and dropped the last two years of probation.  (4)Precluded me from working in my chosen employment by prohibiting me from using the Internet, a necessary condition for a Network Administrator, MCSE and CNE; (5)A lawsuit was dismissed, Case No.. 01-13664-A, based upon this illegal sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction.  What is really repulsive and repugnant to the rule of law and the concept of honesty is that the Eleventh Circuit struck my brief for arguing against this sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction in Case No.. 01-13664-A because they claimed it was beyond the scope of appeal; but when the Eleventh Circuit rendered an opinion it then used the very same sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction against me.  See Putrid Dishonesty:Beyond the Scope of Appeal, http://mcneilmason.wordpress.com/2009/05/24/putrid-dishonestybeyond-the-scope-of-appeal/ . Is the Eleventh Circuit saying that it is not judicial misconduct to intentionally concoct an illegal order and use that illegal order to put a man in jail for 41 days?  See
http://mcneilmason.wordpress.com/eleventh-circuit-sits-idly-by-while-a-clearly-void-sua-sponte-issued-pre-filing-injunction-wreaks-havoc-on-a-mans-life/.

Using the appellate process to remedy judicial misconduct amounts to nothing more than an illusory remedy as Judge Edmondson and some of his colleagues routinely undermine the appellate process.  The major problem with this tactic is that the court is free to ignore complaints of misconduct in the appellate process by simply not addressing them and then burying the fact in an unpublished opinion that is never released to the Internet.  A scathing attack of  U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham was launched in a direct appeal in Case No. 01-13664-A, the opinion makes no mention of the allegations, much less their veracity. The sum total of the appellate review consisted of the following:  “Mason also raises issues that relate to non-sanction matters, e.g., …, the denial of his motions to disqualify the district court and magistrate judges,…”  See Case No. 01-13664-A, Opinion, pg. 10, http://mmason.freeshell.org/01-13664/OrderAffirmingTrialCourt/Opinion.pdf.   Similarly, a petition for mandamus, Case No. 01-15754, was submitted on or about October 2, 2001. This petition accused Judge Graham of misconduct. Your colleagues simply ignored the allegations of misconduct by stating only the following in a terse one sentence unpublished “opinion” :The ” petition for writ of mandamus and petition for writ of prohibition” is DENIED.” See mmason.freeshell.org/15754/mandamus_denied.pdf . For a full discussion of every dishonest tactic that the Eleventh Circuit used to undermine an appeal right see, Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell, http://mcneilmason.wordpress.com/eleventh-circuit-case-no-01-13664-the-appeal-from-hell/

It is time to hold Judge Graham accountable for his actions.   I derisively refer to Judge Graham as “Teflon Don” because nothing seems to stick to him.  This court has mounted a gargantuan effort to conceal the behavior Judge Graham from public scrutiny.  This effort has failed because I have dedicated multiple websites to exposing Judge Graham’s behavior.   The question is not if Judge Graham is going to be held accountable for his behavior, but how much damage is concealing Judge Graham’s behavior and not disciplining him going to tarnish the Eleventh Circuit and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  Judge Graham is selfish in that he is putting his colleagues in a dilemma. The attacks on Judge Graham’s record and misbehavior will be relentless.  I can’t be bullied by the likes of Judge Graham and his ilk.  Let’s put this matter to bed and conduct a proper investigation of the complaints that I have filed against Judge Graham.  If Judge’s Graham’s behavior does not constitute a “pattern and practice of arbitrarily and deliberately disregarding prevailing legal standards” then there is no such thing!

Sincerely,

Marcellus M. Mason, Jr.

214 Atterberry Drive

Sebring, FL 33870