Justice Turned On Its Head
Judge Donald L. Graham, “Teflon Don”, A Bad Mother&&#!@, Shut Your Mouth!!
Point of This Post
The Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal, effectively affirmed or upheld U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham, Southern District of Florida, on appeal for the exact same set of facts that his colleague, Senior Judge Wilbur D. Owens, Jr., Middle District of Georgia, was reversed for on appeal. In their individual cases, both Judge Graham and Judge Owens used their inherent power to make a finding of “bad faith”; however, Judge Owens was reversed on appeal for failing to afford the sanctioned party due process while Judge Graham committed the exact same error but was not reversed. In fact, the Eleventh Circuit has refused to address the validity of the order making the “bad faith” finding in what has to be a Guinness world record number of times. Incidentally, the Eleventh Circuit has a long history of affirming Judge Graham on appeal while reversing his colleagues for the exact same set of facts. For example, see the following posts:
- 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
- Eleventh Circuit Uses Unpublished Opinion and Omission(Deception) To Invoke Res Judicata
- U.S. Dist. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas Reversed While Colleague Judge Donald L. Graham Affirmed by Killing The Appeal
- Another One Bites the Dust: Same Set of Facts, Judge Graham Affirmed While Colleague Judge Forrester Reversed
- Judge Graham Disagrees With The Fifth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals
It is hard not to conclude that Judge Graham is clearly favored over his colleagues in the Eleventh Circuit. Incidentally, Judge Owens was sent a fax informing his of post and all his law clerks have received emails regarding this matter.
Senior Judge Wilbur D. Owens, Jr.
Senior Judge Wilbur D. Owens, Jr., District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Case No. 04-00080-CV-WDO-5 was reversed for using his inherent power to make a bad faith finding without affording a litigant due process. In Adkins v. Christie, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 8322,*;227 Fed. Appx. 804 (11th Cir. 2007), the Eleventh Circuit stated:
[A] federal court possesses the inherent power to impose sanctions. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43, 111 S. Ct. 2123, 2132, 115 L. Ed. 2d 27 (1991). However, the court must afford the sanctioned party due process, “both in determining that the requisite bad faith exists and in assessing fees.” In re Mroz, 65 F.3d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1995). Due process mandates that an attorney be given fair notice that his conduct may warrant sanctions and the reasons why. Donaldson v. Clark, 819 F.2d 1551, 1559-60 (11th Cir. 1987). In addition, the attorney must be given a chance to respond to the allegations and justify his or her actions. In re Mroz, 65 F.3d at 1575-76. We find that the requirements of due process were not satisfied in this case.
Similarly, in In Re: Sunshine Jr. Stores, Inc. v. Sunshine-Jr. Stores, Inc.,456 F.3d 1291(11th Cir. 2006), the court held:
Courts must afford a sanctioned party due process, both in determining the bad faith required to invoke the court’s inherent power to impose sanctions and in assessing fees. In re Mroz, 65 F.3d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1995) [*35] (citing Chambers, 501 U.S. at 49, 111 S. Ct. at 2135). “Due process requires that the [party] be given fair notice that [its] conduct may warrant sanctions and the reasons why.” Id. (citing Donaldson v. Clark, 819 F.2d 1551, 1559-60 (11th Cir. 1987)).
Judge Donald L. Graham
U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham, who like Senior Judge Wilbur D. Owens, Jr., above, used his inherent power to make a bad faith finding without affording the litigant due process, but was not reversed on appeal unlike Judge Owens. As a matter of fact, the Eleventh Circuit has refused to review the order making the finding of bad faith for validity on multiple occasions.
On September 20, 2001, Judge Graham issued a pre-filing injunction against Marcellus Mason sua sponte. (D.E. #878). Courts routinely reject sua sponte issued pre-filing injunctions without batting an eye. See http://mmason.freeshell.org/RejectSuaSponte.htm. This order specifically states: “THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte.” (D.E. #878, pg. 3;). Incidentally, when Judge Graham rendered this order on September 20, 2001, the case was closed and had been noticed for appeal and assigned Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664 since June 25, 2001. See Notice of Appeal, (D.E. #795).
In this same sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction Judge Graham makes a so-called “finding of bad faith“. “It has become clear to the Court that Mason is proceeding in bad faith.. Such activity is in bad faith and will not be permitted by the Court.” (D.E. #878, pg. 5, 6, “Bad Faith” section).
Judge Graham then took this so-called finding of bad-faith and then used it to award attorney’s fees of $200,000 against Marcellus Mason even though neither he nor the Eleventh Circuit ever gave Mason the opportunity to oppose the order. A Report and Recommendation, “R&R”, was issued and stated:
Judge Graham’s order of September 20, 2001, also makes a specific finding of bad faith . Judge Graham stated, “It has become clear to the Court that Mason is proceeding in bad faith.
See “R&R”, (D.E. #882, pgs. 3).
Judge Graham stated that such activity is in bad faith and will not be permitted by the Court. Even though bad faith is not a prerequisite to an award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant, if the plaintiff is found to have brought such a civil rights action or to have continued such an action in bad faith, there will be an even stronger basis for charging him with attorney’s fees incurred by the defense. Here, it is clear that based upon Judge Graham’s previous findings of bad faith,…
See “R&R”, (D.E. #882, pgs. 3).
Judge Graham accepted this R&R. See (D.E. 891)(“Defendants are awarded the sum of $200,000.00 as reasonable attorney’s fees in this case.”).
Eleventh Circuit Upholds Judge Graham’s Abusive and Unlawful Behavior
In Case No. 01-15754, a Petition for Mandamus, pps. 15-18, was filed on October 1, 2001, or eleven days after the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001 that made a finding of bad faith was rendered. See receipt. On December 5, 2001, the Eleventh Circuit refused to review the September 20, 2001 order and bad faith finding for validity and in a terse one sentence opinion stated:
The ‘petition for writ of mandamus and petition for writ of prohibition’ is DENIED.
Mason then sought to have the order of September 20, 2001 that made the “bad faith” finding reviewed for validity in the pending direct appeal, Case No. 01-13364. However, in a really despicable and dishonest act, the Eleventh Circuit struck Mason’s brief for arguing against the validity of the order of September 20, 2001 because the Eleventh Circuit claimed the order was beyond the scope of appeal. Notwithstanding this fact, the Eleventh Circuit then turned around and used this order to affirm Judge Graham in the very same appeal, Case No. 01-13664. See “Putrid Dishonesty:Beyond the Scope of Appeal ” for proof of this pernicious and blatantly dishonest act. The story gets even more incredulous because Mason subsequently made a multiplicity of attempts to get the September 20, 2001 order reviewed for validity; however, the Eleventh Circuit used ingenuity and trickery that would make the shister lawyer proud in order to avoid reviewing this order for validity. See Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sets Guiness World Record For Refusing to Review Sua Sponte Issued Pre-Filing Injunction.
Judge Graham then escalated the matter by using this clearly void sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction to form the basis of a criminal contempt complaint. See
Eleventh Circuit Sits Idly By While A Clearly Void Sua Sponte Issued Pre-Filing Injunction Wreaks Havoc On A Man’s Life.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST U.S. JUDGE DONALD L. GRAHAM
Judge Graham has engaged in reckless, lawless, and vindictive behavior, which includes, but is not limited to the following:
- Lying and intentionally misrepresenting law. See Core Allegations.
- Refusing to rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction that
had been pending for more than 17 months. See Core Allegations. - Allowing scores of motions and filings to languish without being
decided. See Languishing Motions. - 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. See Usurp,
Usurp2, and Usurp3. - Violating clearly established law and the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court by issuing pre-filing injunctions without notice and opportunity to be heard. See Pre-filing Injunction.
- Abuse of the criminal contempt procedure. Judge Graham took a clearly invalid sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction and made it the basis of a criminal contempt complaint and conviction. See Framed.
- Lying and intentionally misrepresenting material facts. See Intentionally Misstating Facts.
- Ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court denying access to the courts by refusing to state any reason for denying IFP applications. See IFP Denials.
- Awarding attorneys’ fees of $200,000 against an indigent plaintiff in total
disregard of the law and the United States Supreme Court. Massive Attorney’s Fees Award.
Judge Graham has a host of judicial misconduct filed against him. Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson’s has dismissed most of these complaints by simply defining judicial misconduct out of existence. State court judges have been removed for less reasons than the conduct committed by Judge Graham. Read the following complaints and Judge Edmondson’s reply and form your own judgment. The following complaints have been lodged against Teflon Don, or U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham.
- 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;
Pending Judicial Misconduct Complaints
Complaint | Status |
Judicial Conference |
pending |
Reconsideration |
pending |
June 25, 2008 |
pending |
July 9, 2008 |
pending |
July 15, 2008 |
pending |
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,Binding National Rules Adopted for Handling Judicial Misconduct Complaints, in March of this year, the Judicial Conference adopted the first-ever binding nationwide procedures for handling complaints of judicial misconduct. U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham has escaped discipline for his abusive and possible criminal behavior. As a result of this, Mason submitted complaints to both the Judicial Conference and Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson, Eleventh Circuit, US Court of Appeal again. These complaints are governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364, “The Judicial Improvements Act of 2002” formerly “The Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act“. Previously, Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson, had been misconstruing the statute and summarily dismissing complaints of misconduct by simply regurgitating the statutory language at 28 U.S.C. § 352 which allows him dismiss complaints that are “directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling“. Judge Edmondson is alone in his view that legal error and judicial misconduct are mutually exclusive. For more discussion on “legal error” and judicial misconduct, see article
Chief Circuit Judge J.L. Edmondson Uses Perfect Scam of Negative Definition To Defeat Complaints of Misconduct Under the Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act .