Putrid Dishonesty:Beyond the Scope of Appeal
This page is part of an expose on U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham and the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals.
Judge Donald L. Graham
Think of the most dishonest act you can imagine or have witnessed ! This act of dishonesty will pale in the order of 10100 power when compared to the dishonesty of certain federal judges at the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals.
Judges whose personal integrity are involved in this dishonest act are: Judge Susan H. Black, Order To Strike (Appellant), Judge Frank M. Hull, (Appellee Order to Strike); Judge Stanley F. Birch, Jr., Judge Susan H. Black, and Judge Stanley Marcus wrote the Opinion in this matter, Case No. 01-13664.
The Act of Putrid Dishonesty
The Eleventh Circuit struck Marcellus Mason’s appellate brief for arguing against an order, a void sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction, and then turned around and used the very same stricken sua sponte issued pre-filing to support their Opinion against Marcellus M. Mason. For the layman, the term “beyond the scope of appeal” means that issue is not to be considered on the pending appeal or the appeal in question. The Eleventh Circuit did the chronologically impossible in that they used an order rendered on September 20, 2001 to justify the dismissal of a case closed three months earlier on June 20, 2001. Our legal system simply can not stand this type of dishonesty.
Beyond the Scope of Appeal: A Despicable and Egregious Act
Dist. Ct. Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham
Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664-A, Judge Stanley F. Birch, Jr., Judge Susan H. Black, and Judge Stanley Marcus
The case was closed on June 20, 2001 and, a Notice of Appeal was promptly filed on June 25, 2001. (Docket Entry795).
On September 20, 2001, Judge Graham issues a pre-filing injunction, sua sponte.
See Docket Entry Number 878, (D.E. # 878). It is well settled that a sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction is void due to the requirement of due process or notice and opportunity to respond prior to issuance. See Case Law on Sua Sponte Injunctions.
On March 6, 2002, the Eleventh Circuit and Judge Susan H. Black struck Mason’s brief for arguing against the September 20, 2001 sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction. Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit ordered Mason to file all new initial briefs less any mention of the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction. The Eleventh Circuit claimed the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction was “beyond the scope of appeal”. See Order Striking Appellant’s Brief. This new filing caused Mason to have pay for 7 new briefs of about 45 pages.
On March 25, 2002, 19 days after the Eleventh Circuit, struck Mason’s brief for arguing against the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction, Highlands County argued for the same sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction in their Answer Brief on pages 18 and 19. However, the Eleventh Circuit, while granting Mason’s motion to strike Highlands County brief for arguing for the same sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction, did not make Highlands County file all new answer briefs as they had done to Mason. The Eleventh Circuit claimed that it would not consider the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction in its decision. See OrderStriking Appellees’ Brief
Appellant’s motion to strike Appellees’ brief is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that Appellees cite to the District Court’s September 2001, Omnibus Order, as that order is outside the scope of this appeal. This Court will disregard any references in Appellees’ brief to matters outside the scope of this appeal.
As stated above, in its opinion of October 16, 2002,
Case No. 01-13664, pgs. 13-14, the Eleventh Circuit stated:
Moreover, despite the closure of the case by the district court, Mason’s continual filing of motions with the court addressing matters previously settled prompted the district court to prohibit Mason from further filings without explicit permission and initiate criminal contempt proceedings. Therefore, the record supports the district court’s implicit finding that a sanction less than dismissal of the action with prejudice would have had no effect.
It is outrageous that the Eleventh Circuit would use the same sua sponte pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001 that it struck Mason’s brief for arguing in order to make a finding to support a Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. dismissal. See “Opinion, pgs. 13, 14, Implicit finding Beyond the Scope.” .
Background
Marcellus M. Mason, Jr. of Sebring, Fl. filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the Highlands County Board of County Commissioners and Heartland Library Cooperative and other governmental entities and individual government employees in February 1999. This case was ultimately assigned Judge Donald L. Graham and Magistrate Frank Lynch Jr., Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham/Lynch. After protracted litigation, the case was dismissed, not on the merits of the case, but based upon banned and irrelevant out of court constitutionally protected and legal communications between Highlands County and Mason. “R&R” (D.E. 766), Order adopting R&R (D.E791). See Banned Communications.
In June and July 2000, Maria Sorolis and Brian Koji, Allen,Norton & Blue asked the Magistrate to grant them preliminary injunctions that required Mason to contact them before he could talk to the government defendants. These orders required Mason, a nonlawyer, living in Sebring, FL to contact private attorneys some 90 miles away in Tampa, FL .
These orders were granted on June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000 in part stated:
Plaintiff shall be prohibited from contacting any of the Defendants, including their supervisory employees and/or the individual Defendants, regarding any matter related to this case.” (DE#201).
This order is dated June 19, 2000.
Plaintiff shall correspond only with Defendants’ counsel including any requests for public records.” (DE #246)
Plaintiff shall be prohibited from contacting any of the Defendants, including their supervisory employees and/or the individual Defendants,
regarding any matter related to this case. (DE #246)
This order is dated July 25, 2000.
Judge Graham has expressly stated that the issuance of the injunctions by Magistrate Judge Frank Lynch, Jr. was not “clearly erroneous nor is it contrary to law.” See Docket Entry No. 407. However, Congress and the law disagree as the law expressly states that:
Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary—
a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief…,”
Links
Web Portal to Dishonest Acts by the Eleventh Circuit:
http://mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm
Unpublished Junk Law of the Eleventh Circuit, US Court of Appeals 
May 1, 2008 at 4:32 pm |
[…] The Eleventh Circuit struck Mason the Appellant/Plaintiff’s brief for arguing an order that it deemed beyond the scope of appeal and then turned around used the very same order to affirm Judge Graham. “Putrid Dishonesty:Beyond the Scope of Appeal” […]
June 21, 2010 at 8:31 pm |
This is typical rhetorict. Another District Judge cannot review the other Judge’s decision and he assured us he did it in good conscience and honesty. Malarky what a bunch of hogwash. This guy was a Magistrate for far too long. Hoodwinking, deception by cheese-bait mouse trap style tactics all in order to preserve jurisdiction. Malarky plain malarky. What happened to the fact that a Court, cannot make valid that which is void with the passage of time. That a void order can be challenged in any court at any time (Sua Sponte) now, seems to mean, whenevr I get around to it unless I can find a way to help my compadres in crime retain their position and get that retirement check. What a Crock…
They are doing the same thing to me…in a case about illegally invocation of the Court’s jurisdiction, improper accounting records held by the Central Depository and the Florida Department of Revenue now, I’m being persued by the Attorney General who has to fight to have me declared a vexatious litigant in a vain attempt to acquire jurisdiction over an illegally invoked cause of action, since Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez-Rundle committed a fraud upon the Court.
Save the embarrassment, this Judge will pul out of teh doledrums with his own sense of what Justice is.
The Rev.
December 6, 2010 at 4:45 pm |
Well, the Third District Ocurt of Appeals of Florida issued a MANDATE for further hearings consistent with thier opinion in CS No. 3D09-1287, It appears they have issued an opinion, which I can’t get a copy of nor find anywhere since it was PCA’d -probably unpublished at this point or just being secreted for now. Anyway after 7-1/2 years they may have come to their senses and ralized there is something to my assertion that the trial ourt issued a void Dissolution Decree Judgment, lacks subjec-matter jurisdiction under not only Financial Fraud but Fraud in the procurement of jurisdiction. I have since discovered Executive Order 13519 signed by President Barack Obama allowing the establishment of a Financial Fraud task force by all agency’s under the Department of Justice umbrella. Its about time. Say what you want about this President but I believe he just took the first step in ridding the financial crimes being perpetrated by those who would subvert justice.
In His Service,
Rev. Rocky B. Hunt
Universal Life Churh of the Renaissance
December 6, 2010 at 5:01 pm |
That being said in another case – 3D08 2140 against the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission where they illegally removed benefits, the Third District issued its MANDATE for hearings consistent with its opinion back in 2008. However, there has been no hearing set to date, I asked for enforcement under a Petition for Civil Contempt which was denied, then ran it by the Florida Supremes, who dismissed this under Stallworth v. Moore for the 5th time, since they’ve known for ovwer 5 years that the trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, issued a void Dissolution Decree Judgment and cannot validate any amounts due for support or mainteance in a Family Relations matter, which they are trying to enforce by utilizing long-arm jurisdiction via Rules promulgated under URESA/UIFSA which really amount to nothing more than…Do as I say not as I do rules allowing the State of New Jersey to erroneously exercise their lack of jurisdiction in hopes I will make a payment on a void income deduction order or thru forceable removal under the lien/levy laws promulgated under the U.S. Department of the Treasury Financial Managment Service present me to the public as a Deadbeat Dad and a financial embarassment globally requiring intervention to pay down a non-existent debt/obligation.
In His Service,
Rev. Rocky B. Hunt
December 6, 2010 at 5:08 pm |
In still yet another case 3D09-1287 against the Florida Department of Revenue, the agency responsible for collection of any purported debt/obligation. The Third District Court of Appeals issued another MANDATE for heaarings consistent with its opinion and whereas, its been over 60 days and this case has been removed to a Federal forum in fact, in an attempt to obtain some asseblance of due process and the long-awaited evidentiary hearing to get the evidence on the record, evidence of a void Dissolution Decree Judgment and why the agency lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and the submission of fraudulently filed financial affidavits in a marital or paternity case which is governed by Fla. Fam L. R. P. 12.540 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b)(4) and Fla. Evidence Code sec. 90.702 necessary to comport with substantive due process rights and the ends of justice so require.
In His Service,
Rev. Rocky B. Hunt
November 16, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
You are a dick The lawyers are return their hard earned degree
August 14, 2017 at 3:14 pm |
I will just say great! Can you tell me more about this? You active on Instagram? I bet you make babies smile. I have learned new things through your website.