Johnnie Cochran Wipes His Feet On The First Amendment
Some people are all for free speech and all the other rights granted us by our Constitution and Bill Of Rights...until those rights start negatively affecting them. Cochran is, apparently, one of those people. Here's an exerpt from a New York Times editorial:
Cochran persuaded a California court to order Ulysses Tory, a longtime critic, never to talk about him again. That is brilliant lawyering, but terrible First Amendment law. The Supreme Court should restore Tory's free speech rights.Tory hired Cochran's firm to bring a civil rights lawsuit on his behalf after he was fired on by law enforcement officers while leaving a fish market. He had numerous complaints about the firm's work, and eventually began standing outside Cochran's Los Angeles offices with disparaging signs, including "You've been a BAD BOY, Johnnie L. Cochran."
Cochran sued Tory for defamation. He didn't ask for damages. Instead, he asked that Tory be stopped from speaking in the future. Cochran prevailed, and got a court order that Tory could not say anything about him in any public forum. Tory appealed, arguing that this sweeping prohibition violated his free speech rights. Incredibly, two appeals courts refused to overturn it.
> Incredibly, two appeals courts
> refused to overturn it.
And the third? Is this over?
Naw
Cridland at March 25, 2005 6:35 PM
Hmmm. No ACLU lawyer to be found? There's a civil liberty involved here I do believe. Looks like a simple case of another old boys' club deal in action. This time the old boys are lawyers protecting one of their own. Oh, and those judges ruling against? Lawyers. Anyone see a pattern here? Used to be called getting to big for their britches. Can anyone, or any other arm of govt bring lawyers back to accountability? Nope. Only other lawyers can do that. Congress could issue contempt of congress edicts. But can anyone quess what background the majority of congressmen have? Law, perchance?
Oh, but then as some sort of protection against judicial misconduct we have impeachment of judges. Of course, that'd take some other lawyers to pull off. I think we're sunk. Doesn't help they have become fantastically wealthy as a group, on top of all the power grabbing. And people are more scared of illegal immigrants and common criminals? I am, too, but only when they have a good lawyer.
allan at March 25, 2005 6:48 PM
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. 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
http://donaldlgraham.blogspot.com
http://secretlaw.com
http://secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/Help
Letters/ContemptAbuse.html
These links discuss the efforts of the
US Court of Appeal, Eleventh Circuit
to conceal the misconduct.
http://mmason.freeshell.org/trickery/t
rickery.htm
http://mmason.freeshell.org/refusetodi
scuss.html
http://mmason.freeshell.org/inherent/i
nherent.html
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:
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
http://secretlaw.com/NewCompla
int/HelpLetters/DE-435/de435.pdf
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
http://secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/Help
Letters/00-14094/de58.pdf . 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,
http://secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/Help
Letters/DE-435/de435.pdf ,(DE #435).
Graham signed this Report and
Recommendation. See (DE #466),
http://secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/Help
Letters/DE-466/de466.pdf .
See http://Secretlaw.com and
http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/.
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?
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:
http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secre
t/04-11894/04-11894.pdf. 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:
http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secre
t/99-
14027/ConsolidatedAmendedComplaint.doc
. 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.
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
http://secretlaw.com//NewCompl
aint/HelpLetters/DE201Orders/de201.pdf
. Order June 19, 2000 (DE #201).
correspond only with Defendants'
[Government] counsel including any
requests for public records.
See
http://secretlaw.com/NewCompla
int/HelpLetters/DE201Orders/de246.pdf
. Order dated July 25, 2000 (DE
#246).
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
http://Secretlaw.com and
http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/.
* 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
http://Secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/Help
Letters/11305/11305.pdf
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?
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
PacerReportsDocketEntries99-
14027.html.
* 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
http://secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/Help
Letters/languishingmotions.html
* 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,
http://secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/Help
Letters/CivilJusticeReformActReport.pd
f .
* 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,
http://secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/Help
Letters/GrahamLawsuit.html and
Contempt Abuse,
http://secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/Help
Letters/ContemptAbuse.html .
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,
http://mmason.freeshell.org/trickery/t
rickery.htm . The Eleventh Circuit's
"creativity"in avoiding discussing
these serious allegations is only
exceeded by its dishonesty.
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,
http://mmason.freeshell.org/trickery/t
rickery.htm , for details of the
tricks the Eleventh Circuit uses to
crush appeals.
05-10623-I,
http:/secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpL
etters/05-10623/05-10623.pdf
petition
http:/secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpL
etters/05-10623/PetitionMandamus.swf
01-15754-A,
http:/secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpL
etters/15754/mandamus_denied.pdf
petition,
http:/secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpL
etters/15754/WritOfMandamusAndWritOfPr
ohibition.pdf
01-13664 ,
http:/secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpL
etters/01-
13664/OrderAffirmingTrialCourt/Opinion
-OCR.doc
Initial Brief,
http:/secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpL
etters/01-
13664/CorrectedInitialBrief.swf
04-11894,
http:/secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpL
etters/04-11894/04-11894.pdf
Mandamus Petition,
http:/secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpL
etters/04-11894/mandamus.swf
02-14646A ,
http:/secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpL
etters/02-14646A/02-14646.pdf
Mandamus Petition ,
http:/secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpL
etters/02-14646A/mandamus.swf
Horrace Jones at April 2, 2005 5:19 PM
Leave a comment