Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

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.

Posted by aalkon at March 25, 2005 8:30 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


> Incredibly, two appeals courts
> refused to overturn it.

And the third? Is this over?


Posted by: 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.

Posted by: allan at March 25, 2005 6:48 PM

Judicial Misconduct

and Judicial Activism on


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


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


"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."



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.


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,

Letters/DE-435/de435.pdf ,(DE #435).

Graham signed this Report and

Recommendation. See (DE #466),

Letters/DE-466/de466.pdf .
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:

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:



. 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


*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

Plaintiff shall correspond only

with Defendants' [Government] counsel.



. Order June 19, 2000 (DE #201).

Plaintiff shall

correspond only with Defendants'

[Government] counsel including any

requests for public records.



. Order dated July 25, 2000 (DE


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."



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.


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

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 .



* 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,


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


Letters/GrahamLawsuit.html and

Contempt Abuse,

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,

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,

rickery.htm , for details of the

tricks the Eleventh Circuit uses to

crush appeals.














01-13664 ,





Initial Brief,







Mandamus Petition,



02-14646A ,



Mandamus Petition ,



Posted by: Horrace Jones at April 2, 2005 5:19 PM

Leave a comment