Friday, August 24, 2007

Proposed Rules For Federal Judges

The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disabilities of the Judicial Conference of the United States has promulgated proposed new rules for misconduct and disability preceedings against federal judges. The link here is to the D.C. Bar's links to the proposed rules and information concerning the comment period. (Mike Frisch)

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2007/08/proposed-rules-.html

Judicial Ethics and the Courts | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00e54ee594c78834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Proposed Rules For Federal Judges:

Comments

If Judge Payne is disciplined it would be a rare almost non-existent event. Federal Judges are almost never disciplined under any method.

The following allegations are fully supported at:

mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm

mmason.freeshell.org/372c/index.html


These links describe and document conduct so egregious and dishonest it is hard to imagine or overstate. Take five minutes and read them, then judge for yourself. This type of dishonesty and Judicial abuse simply can not be tolerated in a democracy.

Federal Judges will take extreme measures to keep from disciplining other Federal Judges. They will lie and cheat and make up facts, or ignore facts. The current methods of federal judicial discipline are:

Impeachment

Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act

Lawsuits Against Judges

Appellate Review


These methods are ineffective as Judges can and do undermine them with apparent ease and no accountability. One would think that if a judge, U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham, is guilty of the following then some type of discipline would be in order.


Lying and intentionally misrepresenting law.

Refusing to rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction that had been pending for more than 17 months.

Allowing scores of motions and filings to languish without being decided.

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.
Violating clearly established law and the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court by issuing pre-filing injunctions.

Abuse of the criminal contempt procedure. Judge Graham took patently illegal order and made it the basis of a criminal contempt complaint and conviction.
Lying and intentionally misrepresenting material facts.

Ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court denying access to the courts by refusing to state any reason for denying IFP applications.

It appears that the favored
judges in the Eleventh Circuit do not have to worry about being reversed on
appeal, as matter of fact, it appears that the Eleventh Circuit will take
extreme measures to affirm a favored judge. It is not fair to other
judges or litigants to have such a two-tiered system.



Martinez, v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir.
2004) and the Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded Judge Hurley's denial of an
IFP application. You might be curious to know that Judge Donald L. Graham
in the same Court, Southern District of Florida did the exact thing as Judge
Hurley, but Judge Graham was affirmed. Take five minutes and read mmason.freeshell.org/martinez.htm
.


Similarly in World Thrust Films v. International Family
Entertainment, 41 F. 3d 1454 (11th Cir. 1995), U.S. District Judge Ursula
Ungaro-Benages, United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, was reversed on appeal for failing to make an explicit finding under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), while U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham, S.D. Fla.,
failed to make the same explicit finding, but was affirmed on appeal. See mmason.freeshell.org/WorldThrust.htm
.

Posted by: Hoarrace Jones | Sep 2, 2007 2:48:56 PM

Post a comment