Thursday, April 28, 2005
Jon Stewart on Justice Sunday
The other night the Daily Show with Jon Stewart had a piece on the so-called "Justice Sunday" sponsored by right-wing conservative Christian groups this past weekend. If you haven't heard of this yet, basically the religious right is claiming oppression and persecution against people of faith by Democrats who are seeking to oppose a small handful of Bush's judicial nominees through a filibuster. One Christian leader actually called the filibuster "judicial tyranny to people of faith"! James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Prison Fellowship's Chuck Colson, and Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler hosted "Justice Sunday," a telecast this weekend from a mega-church in Louisville, Kentucky. Their message is that those who don't support President Bush's judicial nominees are hostile to "people of faith."

The Daily Show correspondent offered a particularly hilarious satirical quip about how conservative Christians are an "oppressed majority"... after all, they only currently control the White House, both branches of Congress, and most of the Supreme Court! :->

You can watch the clip here.

If you hadn't guessed already, this kind of behaviour by the religious right infuriates me. There's so much wrong with it, first of all, the coopting of a church as a platform for a partisan political agenda. Not that think Christians shouldn't be involved in politics, but this kind of activism implies that God necessarily favors one political party over another. It's essentially claiming that God is a Republican.

This then leads to the implication that it is a Christian obligation to support Bush's nominees. For them to say that an attack on the nominees is an attack on "people of faith", assumes that all "people of faith" must necessarily be in Bush's camp, and thus, if we're not, then we must not be truly "people of faith". This kind of syncretistic religious/political ideology is offensive both on a political and theological level. It ignores the fact that people of faith can and often do differ on many political issues. For Dobson and the rest to make the Judicial selection process a "faith" issue is a blatant attempt to co-opt the Christian religion for one narrow political agenda.

Finally, some are even calling for reforms to get rid of filibusters altogether. This just strikes me as hypocritical and short sighted. I remember back in the early 90's when the Republicans were in the minority in Congress, they touted their own filibusters as great strategic victories for the minority voices in this country... but of course now that the shoe is on the other foot, they want to change the rules. Neverminding the fact that filibusters are an essential component of a healthy democracy in order to limit the danger of a "tyranny of the majority".

And don't even get me started on the offensivenes of calling this event "Justice Sunday". Child labor is injustice, forced prostitution is injustice, farmers and factory workers not able to make a living wage because of unfair trading practices is injustice... conservative Christians & Republicans not being able to get their way in everything is NOT injustice.
posted by Mike Clawson at 6:48 PM | Permalink |


At 6/22/2005 06:43:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous

Judicial Misconduct and Judicial Activism on Steroids

I found some interesting links which will conclusively prove that the present system of judicial discipline is a joke. These links describe a well-known problem that needs to be addressed. There is no "judicial discipline" with respect to the federal judiciary and that is a terrible mistake. "Absolute power corrupts." Every other branch of government is subject to some type of discipline except federal judges.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who recently appointed a six member commission to study judicial discipline, knows full well that complaints of judicial misconduct are routinely dismissed and NEVER acted on, no matter how bad the alleged and proven misconduct is. If you need proof and can read nothing else then click on this link, and see how Chief Judge Edmondson, Eleventh Circuit, Court of Appeals, and William Zloch, Chief Judge, U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D.Fla, Miami evade misconduct allegations. Moreover, complaints [section 372(c)] are kept in total secret. Additionally, complaints of judicial misconduct lodged through the appellate process are ignored as well. Judges, or law clerks, give themselves permission not to publish cases, consequently acts of misconduct never reach the light of day. There is no effective way to discipline a rogue federal judge and everybody in the legal profession is keenly aware of this fact. If you want to see how bad the current system is, then read the links provided below. These links will demonstrate every thing that is wrong with the current system. Congressman Sensebrenner and his committee should look into this matter.

For really outrageous behavior, read the links below and the documents referenced by the links. Download the documents and save them.

These links generally discuss the misconduct of Judge Donald L. Graham

These links discuss the efforts of the US Court of Appeal, Eleventh Circuit to conceal the misconduct.

Judge Graham Lies and the Eleventh Circuit lies for him!!

* Lied and intentionally misrepresenting the law. Donald L. Graham did this by telling Mason one version of the law and another version of the law to a different Plaintiff. Graham stated in Mason's lawsuit that he 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 Mason's 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

At the very same time, Graham was saying that Mason 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. See . Fa Nina St. Germain's §1981 was 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. Clearly, Judge Graham either lied to Mason or Fa Nina St. Germain as he could not have told the truth to the both of them. See Page 3, Report and Recommendation, ,(DE #435). Graham signed this Report and Recommendation. See (DE #466), .
See and

On May 2004, Judges Carnes and Hull , Case No. 04-11894, were willing to lie or intentionally misstate the facts in order to cover for Judge Graham. Proof?
Mason merely asserts that Judge Graham was not impartial because … (2) would not let Mason file a § 1981 claim, but did let another plaintiff with similar claims do so... Moreover, a review of Mason’s complaint and the other plaintiff’s complaint reveal that their claims are not similar. Mason’s complaint alleges that county entities and employees violated his First Amendment rights, which is actually a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. The plaintiff to which Mason compares himself, however, brought racial and national origin discrimination and retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (Title VII) and § 1981. Both Title VII and § 1981 can be used to bring race discrimination claims.

See pgs. 2-3, Opinion, Eleventh Circuit Case No. No. 04-11894-B, URL: Both Judge Graham and the Eleventh Circuit know that this assertion is false because Mason's complaint specifically alleges racial discrimination and retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (Title VII) and § 1981. See (DE #321, pps. 1, 2, 11; 63-64, 65, ¶¶1, 2, 3, 85, 459-462, 465-466, 473-474), URL: It is hard to imagine that judges would outright lie when they know the record clearly contradicts their statements. Aren't Judges required under the law to tell the truth? What is the punishment for judges that intentionally lie and misrepresent the truth?

*Usurped legal authority in violation of the First and Tenth Amendment. Judge Graham issued orders stating that Mason must request the permission of private for profit attorneys in order to speak to the government or request Public Records under Florida law. Judge Donald L. Graham and his magistrate issued the following orders to an unrepresented Plaintiff in a civil lawsuit. The Defendants being referred to is the Highlands County Board of County Commissioners and other governmental agencies. You can't find an order like this nowhere else in the written United States History.
Plaintiff shall be prohibited from contacting any of the [Government] Defendants, including their supervisory employees and/or the individual [Government] Defendants, regarding any matter related to this case.
Plaintiff shall correspond only with Defendants' [Government] counsel. See . Order June 19, 2000 (DE #201).
Plaintiff shall correspond only with Defendants' [Government] counsel including any requests for public records. See . Order dated July 25, 2000 (DE #246).
Plaintiff shall be prohibited from contacting any of the named [Government] Defendants in this case, including their supervisory employees and/or the individual Defendants, who are parties in other actions (Fellin, St . Germain, etc .) and are represented by counsel in those other actions regarding any matter related to those cases since Plaintiff is not an attorney or the attorney of record for the plaintiffs in those other cases,. See Order dated July 25, 2000 (DE #246) .Judge Graham actually dismissed a lawsuit because he said Mason talked to the government without the permission of a private for profit lawfirm. See Court Orders, (Doc. #201), (Doc. 246) . See and

* Allowing a motion for a preliminary injunction for to languish in court for 574 days and not make a ruling. The motion for preliminary in injunction was initially filed on November 24, 1999. 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 Mason filed petition for mandamus (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

On May 2004, Judges Carnes and Hull , Case No. 04-11894, were willing to lie or intentionally misstate the facts in order to cover for Judge Graham. Proof?

Mason merely asserts that Judge Graham was not impartial because (1) he allowed many of Mason's motions to languish...As to the alleged languishing, a review of the district court docket sheet shows that the court ruled upon his motions in a timely manner .

See pgs. 2, 3 Case No. 04-11894 Opinion,
How is NEVER ruling on scores of motions and filings ruling "upon his motions in a timely manner"? This answer is false, dishonest, absurd, and insulting. Review the docket and see where Graham never ruled on the motions and filings listed above. See

* Allowing scores of motions to languish in court for up to 8 months and not taking any action. For a complete listing, see web page languishing motions . See

* Concealing Information and Falsely Completing a Civil Justice Reform Act Report. When Graham completed his Civil Justice Reform Act Report for March 31, 2001, he shows that he has 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. See Judge Graham's CJRA Report,

* Abuse of the Criminal Contempt Procedure. Judge Graham abused the criminal contempt procedure to intimidate Mason and attempt to force Mason to drop an embarrassing lawsuit filed against him. See Grahams Lawsuit, and Contempt Abuse, .

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal are masters of artifice, treachery, trickery, and dishonesty. The Eleventh Circuit employed these techniques as a part of an overt conspiracy to conceal Judge Graham's misconduct and abuse of power. Even though all manner of appeals, mandamus, and Section 372(c) complaints have been filed, you will not even see these allegations in the Eleventh Circuit's secret and unpublished "opinions". See the Trickery web page for a listing of these techniques, . The Eleventh Circuit's "creativity"in avoiding discussing these serious allegations is only exceeded by its dishonesty.

The Eleventh Circuit absolutely Refuses to Address the Veracity of the allegations of misconduct
The allegations of misconduct directed at Judge Donald L. Graham were raised on direct appeal, mandamus, Section 372(c) Complaints, however, the Eleventh Circuit simply ignored them. Sometimes the Eleventh Circuit just outright lied when it felt like it. See Briefs and Opinions below in Case Nos. 01-13664-A, 01-15754, 02-14646A, 04-11894, and 05-10623-I. See the Trickery web page, , for details of the tricks the Eleventh Circuit uses to crush appeals.


Links to this post

Links to this post:

Create a Link