Archive for the ‘preliminary injunction’ Category

US Circuit Judge Ed Carnes Undermines U.S. Supreme Court By Imposing Hobson’s Choice

May 23, 2008

Judge Donald L. GrahamJudge Donald L. Graham, “Teflon Don

A United States Circuit Judge on the Potential Dangers of Unpublished Opinions

It was U.S. Circuit Judge Richard S. Arnold, 8th Cir. U.S. Court of Appeal who said:

“If, for example, a precedent is cited, and the other side then offers a distinction, and the judges on the panel cannot think of a good answer to the distinction, but nevertheless, for some extraneous reason, wish to reject it, they can easily do so through the device of an abbreviated, unpublished opinion, and no one will ever be the wiser. (I don’t say that judges are actually doing this–only that the temptation exists.) Or if, after hearing argument, a judge in conference thinks that a certain decision should be reached, but also believes that the decision is hard to justify under the law, he or she can achieve the result, assuming agreement by the other members of the panel, by deciding the case in an unpublished opinion and sweeping the difficulties under the rug. Again, I’m not saying that this has ever occurred in any particular case, but a system that encourages this sort of behavior, or is at least open to it, has to be subject to question in any world in which judgesare human beings.”

1 J. App. Prac. & Process 219 (1999). UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS: A COMMENT, Richard S. Arnold, Copyright © 1999 University of Arkansas – Little Rock School of Law ; Richard S. Arnold.Judge Arnold, now deceased, cannot be resting comfortably. In Anastasoff. v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000), Judge Arnold and his panel declared unpublished opinions to be unconstitutional. This opinion was subsequently vacated on other grounds, 235 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2000) by an en banc court.

Purpose of this Post

This post will take an Opinion of Judge Ed Carnes and demonstrate that he nefariously contorted the law and facts in order to achieve the desired outcome. The desired outcome was a vindication of Judge Donald L. Graham by any means necessary. Judge Carnes ruled that a Magistrate’s designation of his own order is controlling on an U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal. The purpose of this post is to:

  • To establish the opinion in this post as a part of an overall pattern and practice of lawlessness.
  • To set forth facts to prove that there is two bodies of law. The “rule of law” as set forth in published opinions and a secret underground body of law set forth in unpublished opinions that have little or nothing to do with the “rule of law”.
  • To show that a Circuit Court Judge will contort the law beyond common sense and even to absurdity in order to achieve the desired outcome.
  • To show the extreme measures federal judges will employ to protect each other.
  • To show how pervasive dishonesty is among the federal judiciary.
  • To help make the argument that “judicial independence” equals judicial non-accountability.
  • To show how a judge can fit the “facts” and the law around desired outcome and place the document beyond public scrutiny.
  • To demonstrate that the federal judicial process needs the disinfectant of sunlight and public scrutiny.
  • To show that a United States Circuit Judge can take the enactments of the U.S. Congress and the decisions of United States Supreme Court and reduce them mere meaningless pieces of paper.

Preliminary Injunctions or Orders at Issue

On June 13, 2000, Maria Sorolis, Allen, Norton & Blue, attorney for Highlands County Board of County Commissioners and Heartland Library Cooperative, filed a motion entitled “DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION“. See Docket Entry 199. This motion expressly states the following:

  • “undersigned counsel and each of them hereby moves the Court for an Injunction prohibiting the Plaintiff, Marcellus Mason, from contacting directly,’ via correspondence, electronic mail, telephonically, or otherwise, any supervisor or employee of any of the Defendants in the above-styled litigation.”
  • “WHEREFORE, Defendants move the Court for an injunction prohibiting Plaintiff from contacting any of the Defendants and/or their supervisory employees,..”

This motion was quickly granted on June 19, 2000. it took the Magistrate just six days or less if mail time is included to grant this motion. On June 19, 2000, Federal Magistrate Frank Lynch Jr. issued the following order:

[I]t is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED…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.

See Docket Entry No. 201. Incidentally, this order clearly violates Mason’s rights to respond to a motion under Local Rule 7.1.C which states: “Each party opposing a motion shall serve an opposing memorandum of law not later than ten days after service of the motion as computed in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On July 6, 2000, Maria Sorolis filed a motion entitled “DEFENDANTS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.” See Docket Entry No. 231. Moreover, the motion specifically asks for the following:

  • “Highlands County Board of County Commissioners, Heartland Library Cooperative, Fred Carino, and Mary Myers, by and through their undersigned counsel, and regrettably renew their Motion to the Court for entry of a Preliminary Injunction against the Plaintiff in this matter, “”
  • “WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully renew their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction prohibiting the Plaintiff from contacting the supervisory employees of the Defendants or the individual Defendants directly, and directing Plaintiff to make all public records requests through the undersigned counsel”

On July 25, 2000, Federal Magistrate Frank Lynch Jr. issued the following order:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED… Plaintiff shall correspond only with Defendants’ counsel including any requests for public records.”

See Docket Entry No. 246. Incidentally, at least three courts have found similar injunctions to be unconstitutional. see Lewis v. S. S. Baune, 534 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1976)(reversing an order which prohibited appellant from “discussing, directly or indirectly, settlement . . . with the plaintiffs” and from “contacting, communicating, or in any way interfering with the attorney-client relationship” as “too sweeping a restraint”); Bernard v. Gulf-Oil Co., 619 F.2d 459, 466 (5th Cir. 1980) (en banc), aff’d, 452 U.S. 89, 101 S.Ct. 2193, 68 L.Ed.2d 693 (1981),( explicitly held that requiring the litigant to meet the Court’s “post-communication filing requirements” of constitutionally protected communication was unconstitutional.). Additionally, in Test Masters Educational Services, Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 579 (Fed. 5th Cir., 2005) the court held that an order which enjoined a litigant “from communicating directly with, threatening, or harassing Test Masters Educational Services, Inc., its employees, its staff, or TES’s counsel, counsel’s employees, or counsel’s staff” constituted an invalid prior restraint and a unconstitutional limitation on free speech.

Hobson’s Choice

Merriam-Webster has defined a hobson’s choice as:
1 : an apparently free choice when there is no real alternative
2 : the necessity of accepting one of two or more equally objectionable alternatives

On April 26, 2001, Judge Ed Carnes asserted:

“With regard to his requests for relief from the order granting the defendants motions for preliminary injunction, which the court construed as a preliminary discovery motion, Mason has an alternative remedy. He may either comply with the district courts discovery order and challenge it on appeal from the final judgment. or refuse to comply with the order and challenge its validity if cited for contempt. See Rouse Constr. Int’l. Inc. v. Rouse Censtr. Corp., 680 F.2d 743, 745 (11th Cir. 1982).

This is a classical hobson’s choice as Judge Ed Carnes presented Mason with two equally objectionable alternatives:

  • Lose his First Amendment right to petition the government directly during the pendency of the lawsuit; or
  • Fail to comply with a court order and risk contempt and a dismissal of an employment discrimination lawsuit.

Judge Carnes view of the law, according to Judge Carnes own previously and subsequently opinions for which he was panel member, is incorrect and not sustainable under the “rule of law”. The orders in question are reviewable immediately for three reasons:

  • The orders are both de facto and de jure injunctions.
  • The orders have the “practical effect” of being injunctions. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that orders have the “practical effect” of being injunctions are immediately reviewable.
  • The orders, notwithstanding any label, cause irreparable harm according to the United States Supreme Court and Judge Carnes own writings.

Constitutional Right to Petition the Government

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” First Amendment, US Constitution.

Right To Interlocutory Appeal

28 U.S.C.§ 1292(a)(1) states:

(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d) of this section, the courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from:
(1) Interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, or of the judges thereof, granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court;

“Certain orders that are not final in the sense of ending the litigation on the merits are immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). To come within this doctrine, an order “must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” CORPORATE RISK MANAGEMENT CORPORATION v. SOLOMON, 936 F.2d 572 (6th Cir. 1991). It is difficult to imagine how you can get back First Amendment rights once you have lost them at the end of trial whose date is indeterminate.

With respect 1292(a)(1), the Eleventh Circuit has “construed the statute narrowly to ensure that appeal as of right under Sec. 1292(a)(1) will be available only in circumstances where an appeal will further the statutory purpose of “permit[ting] litigants to effectually challenge interlocutory orders of serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence.” Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, [348 U.S. 176,] 181, 75 S.Ct. [249,] 252[, 99 L.Ed.2d 233 (1955) ]. Unless a litigant can show that an interlocutory order of the district court might have a “serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence,” and that the order can be “effectually challenged” only by immediate appeal, the general congressional policy against piecemeal review will preclude interlocutory appeal.”CABLE HOLDINGS OF BATTLEFIELD, INC. v. COOKE, 764 F.2d 1466 (11th Cir. 1985).

Absurdity

Judge Carnes’ opinion evinces absurdity and is contrary to law. Inherent in Judge Carnes opinion is the inane notion that a United States Circuit Court of Appeal is bound by a Magistrate’s designation of a “discovery order” and may not review the substance of that order to determine for itself if the “discovery order” is in fact an injunction. If this true, then a Magistrate can issue an injunction and escape appellate review by simply calling an injunction something other than an injunction. “[T]the name which the judge gives the order is not determinative”. Geneva Assur. v. Medical Emergency Services, 964 F.2d 599 (7th Cir. 1992). Judge Carnes was a member of the appellate panel that concluded that “where the order has the effect of a preliminary injunction this court has jurisdiction to review the order and is not bound by the district court’s designation of the order.” See Cuban American Bar Ass’n, Inc. v. Christopher, 43 F.3d 1412 (11th Cir. 1995). More importantly, In Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974) the Supreme Court expressly rejected this line of contorted reasoning:

“A district court, if it were able to shield its orders from appellate review merely by designating them as temporary restraining orders, rather than as preliminary injunctions, would have virtually unlimited authority over tie parties in all injunctive proceeding.”

Irreparable Harm

The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). Judge Marcus himself, in a published decision, has stated: “Regarding irreparable injury, it is well established that “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” KH OUTDOOR, LLC v. TRUSSVILLE, CITY OF, 458 F.3d 1261; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 19901; 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 902 (11th Cir. 2006)(citing Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373, 96 S. Ct. 2673, 2690 (1976) (plurality opinion)).

“An order has the practical effect of granting injunctive relief within the meaning of section 1292(a)(1) if it is directed to a party, enforceable by contempt, and designed to accord or protect some or all of the substantive relief sought by a complaint,(internal citations and quotations omitted), and if the appealing party demonstrates serious, perhaps irreparable, consequences”. HBE LEASING CORPORATION v. FRANK,48 F.3d 623 (2nd Cir. 1994). Using Judge Carnes own words, above, the orders would possibly subject Mason to contempt of court charges, “challenge its validity if cited for contempt.”

According to the Supreme Court, an order that has practical effect of denying or granting an injunction iis immediately appealable if a “litigant can show that an interlocutory order of the district court might have a “serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence,” and that the order can be “effectually challenged” only by immediate appeal,…”Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (1981).

The Ultimate Act of Dishonesty

The ultimate act of dishonesty was that Judge Graham dismissed a lawsuit based upon alleged violations of the injunctions enumerated above and the Eleventh Circuit refused to review these orders for validity. Highlands County asked and got Judge Graham to dismiss a lawsuit because of alleged violations of these orders, which Mason contended on appeal, were illegal. To further illustrate the exreme measures deployed to vindicate Judge Graham personally and more dishonesty see how the Eleventh Circuit was willing to discuss Mason’s alleged violations of these orders while steadfastly refusing to review these very orders for validity, see posts, “Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell” and “Eleventh Circuit Repeatedly Refuses To Review Orders For Validity“). Highlands County filed two motions for sanctions in the form of dismissal of the plaintiff’s lawsuit. Docket Entry Nos. 511 and 646. These motions depicted out of court communications between Highlands County and the Plaintiff, Marcellus Mason. Judge Graham and his Magistrate granted these motions and dismissed the case on June 20, 2001. See Docket Entry Nos. 766 an and 791. The following alleged out of court lawful communications were used to dismiss the lawsuit.

(D.E. 511, ¶6, PG.3)

On February 13, 2001, Plaintiff appeared at Fred Carino’s office and demanded to view attorney billing records from Defendant Highlands County ’s counsel relevant to its defense of his litigation.

D.E. 511, ¶7, PG.3)

On February 14, 2001, Plaintiff returned to Fred Carino’s office and demanded to view attorney billing records from Defendant Highlands County ’s counsel relevant to its defense of his litigation. This request was made directly to Mr. Canno’s office and not through Defendant Highlands County ’s counsel.

D.E. 511, ¶8, PG.4)

After reviewing the, records, Mr. Mason penned a note to Mr. Carino stating that he wanted unredacted portions of billing records and if he did not get them he will file a lawsuit by February 16, 2001

D.E. 511, ¶9, PG.4).

(D.E. 646, ¶10, PG.3)

Clearly, Plaintiffs “no trespass” and tortious interference claims were an integral part of Plaintiffs present litigation, and involve the same set of facts that Plaintiff continues to rely on in pursuing his present claims. Indeed, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint alleged several causes of action based on the issuance of the “no trespass” warnings against Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff’s “no trespass” claims were ultimately dismissed by the Court (D.E.’s #435; 466), Plaintiff has recently indicated his intent to appeal the Court’s dismissal of all claims in his Fourth Amended Complaint. (Exhibit 2). Consequently, the issuance of the “no trespass” warnings against Plaintiff are still part of this present litigation.

(D.E. 646, ¶11, PG.4)

In addition, Plaintiff’s communications regarding Defendants’ counsel’s Eleventh Circuit “track record” clearly have no relevance to his state court claim(s), and pertain only to his federal litigation.

(D.E. 646, ¶12, PG.4)

Advertisements

Judge Graham Thumbs Nose At US Supreme Court And Rejects the First Amendment’s Petition Clause

May 17, 2008

Judge Donald L. GrahamJudge Donald L. Graham, “Teflon Don”

Preface

A district judge may not respectfully (or disrespectfully) disagree with his learned colleagues on his own court of appeals who have ruled on a controlling legal issue, or with Supreme Court Justices writing for a majority of the Court. Binding authority within this regime cannot be considered and cast aside; it is not merely evidence of what the law is. Rather, case law on point is the law. If a court must decide an issue governed by a prior opinion that constitutes binding authority, the later court is bound to reach the same result, even if it considers the rule unwise or incorrect. Binding authority must be followed unless and until overruled by a body competent to do so…A decision of the Supreme Court will control that corner of the law unless and until the Supreme Court itself overrules or modifies it. Judges of the inferior courts may voice their criticisms, but follow it they must.Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1170 (9th Cir. 2001).

Purpose of This Post

The goal of this post is to seek help getting the injunctions in this post subject to appellate review. As demonstrated below, Mason has been unable to obtain appellate review of these orders. Where are the Defenders of the First Amendment?

“Preliminary Injunctions” Implicating Free Speech

“The right of petition is one of the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights,… Certainly the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government.” California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U. S. 508 (1972).

On June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000, U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham’s Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr., issued the following preliminary injunctions which 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. The Defendant referenced in these orders is a government defendant, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners. See heading Background, below. Amazingly enough, Judge Graham has stated that these orders are not “clearly erroneous nor is it contrary to law“. See Document No. 407. Judge Graham also disagrees with the Congress who has stated: “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…,” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)

Goddamn It, I Have the Power

Mason made numerous attempts at getting Teflon Don to state the legal basis for these massive exercises of power in rendering the above orders. However, Judge Graham has refused to share with the legal community and Mason the legal authority for these orders. Judge Graham and his Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr. ‘s replies have included, but are not limited to the following:

Docket No. 279 Docket No. 281
Docket No. 407

Docket No. 524

Docket No. 528
Docket No. 634
Docket No. 744 Docket No. 745 Docket No.874 Pg. 2
Docket No. 882
Docket No. 890

Docket No. 928

Docket No. 931

In fact, as documented below, the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal has avoided appellate review of these orders like they were a highly contagious plague.

Judge Graham’s Hubris

Judge Graham is of the apparent belief that he is not bound by the orders of the United States Supreme Court, “SCOTUS”. Judge Graham has a history of defying the Supreme Court’s holdings anytime he disagrees with them. See Florida Judge Thumbs His Nose at U.S. Supreme Court Rulings on Thumbs His Nose And Attorneys’ Fees and Florida Judge Thumbs His Nose at U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Poor People’s Right to Access The Courts. Judge Graham disagrees with his colleagues at the DC Circuit who have stated: “The limits placed by the First Amendment on the Government extend to its judicial as well as legislative branch.” Equal Emp. Opp. Comm. v. The Catholic Univ., 83 F.3d 455 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Other courts, including the old Fifth Circuit Circuit whom Judge Graham is legally bound to follow, have found orders such as the orders as described here to be unconstitutional. see Lewis v. S. S. Baune, 534 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1976)(reversing an order which prohibited appellant from “discussing, directly or indirectly, settlement . . . with the plaintiffs” and from “contacting, communicating, or in any way interfering with the attorney-client relationship” as “too sweeping a restraint”); Bernard v. Gulf-Oil Co., 619 F.2d 459, 466 (5th Cir. 1980) (en banc), aff’d, 452 U.S. 89, 101 S.Ct. 2193, 68 L.Ed.2d 693 (1981),( explicitly held that requiring the litigant to meet the Court’s “post-communication filing requirements” of constitutionally protected communication was unconstitutional.). Additionally, in Test Masters Educational Services, Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 579 (Fed. 5th Cir., 2005) the court held that an order which enjoined a litigant “from communicating directly with, threatening, or harassing Test Masters Educational Services, Inc., its employees, its staff, or TES’s counsel, counsel’s employees, or counsel’s staff” constituted an invalid prior restraint and a unconstitutional limitation on free speech.

LACK OF APPELLATE REVIEW

The speech and orders described in this post have not been subjected to appellate review. It is, among other things, for this reason that Judge Graham can be accurately described as “Teflon Don”. In what can only be described as judicial treachery and dishonesty, the Eleventh Circuit, on a direct appeal spent an amazing 14 pages talking about the violations of the orders in this post, but none about their validity. This appeal has been described as the appeal from hell, see post entitled “Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell“. The Eleventh Circuit appears to be hell bent on not reviewing these orders for validity as it has absolutely refused to conduct appellate review of these orders on multiple occasions while asserting a different reason each time for its refusal to review these orders. See post “Eleventh Circuit Repeatedly Refuses To Review Orders For Validity“. Can Judge Graham be called anything other than “Teflon Don”?

U.S. Supreme Court on the Petition Clause

The First Amendment guarantees “the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The right to petition is cut from the same cloth as the other guarantees of that Amendment, and is an assurance of a particular freedom of expression. In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), the Court declared that this right is implicit in “[t]he very idea of government, republican in form.” Id., at 552. And James Madison made clear in the congressional debate on the proposed amendment that people “may communicate their will” through direct petitions to the legislature and government officials.McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 482 (1985). The Supreme Court has consistently stated that any system of prior restraints of expression bears a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963);Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, (1931);New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). This burden is so heavy that in over two centuries, the Supreme Court has never sustained a prior restraint involving pure speech, such as the one at issue here. See Matter of Providence Journal Co., 820 F.2d 1342, 1348 (1st Cir. 1986). “[P]ure speech–speech not connected with any conduct”. id. The presumption of unconstitutionally of prior restraints has been described as “virtually insurmountable” by Supreme Court judges and others. id.(citing Near, 283 U.S. at 713). “Prior restraint has traditionally been defined as a “predetermined judicial prohibition restraining specified expression . . . .The essence of prior restraint is that it places specific communications under the personal censorship of the judge.Bernard v. Gulf-Oil Co., 619 F.2d 459, 470 (5th Cir. 1980) (en banc) aff’d, 452 U.S. 89, 101 S.Ct. 2193, 68 L.Ed.2d 693 (1981).

Banned Communications

The right of the people to inform their representatives in government of their desires with respect to the passage or enforcement of laws cannot properly be made to depend upon their intent in doing so. It is neither unusual nor illegal for people to seek action on laws in the hope that they may bring about an advantage to themselves and a disadvantage to their competitors.Eastern R. Conference v. Noerr Motors, 365 U. S. 127 (1961). Judge Graham has banned the following lawful and protected communications with the Highlands County Government.

During the week of February 5, 2001, Plaintiff knowingly violated this Court’s Orders of June 19, 200 and July 25, 2000. Plaintiff appeared at the office of Fred Carino, Human Resource Director of Highlands County and a supervisory employee of a named defendant in this action, and demanded to view his personnel file. This request was made directly to Mr. Carino’s office and not through Defendant Highlands County ’s counsel.

(D.E. 511, ¶6, PG.3)

On February 13, 2001, Plaintiff appeared at Fred Carino’s office and demanded to view attorney billing records from Defendant Highlands County ’s counsel relevant to its defense of his litigation.

D.E. 511, ¶7, PG.3)

On February 14, 2001, Plaintiff returned to Fred Carino’s office and demanded to view attorney billing records from Defendant Highlands County ’s counsel relevant to its defense of his litigation. This request was made directly to Mr. Canno’s office and not through Defendant Highlands County ’s counsel.

D.E. 511, ¶8, PG.4)

After reviewing the, records, Mr. Mason penned a note to Mr. Carino stating that he wanted unredacted portions of billing records and if he did not get them he will file a lawsuit by February 16, 2001

D.E. 511, ¶9, PG.4)

Mr. Mason returned to Mr. Carino’s office a second time on February 14, 2001 and knowingly violated this Court’s Orders of June 19, 200 and July 25, 2000. He demanded to view Defendant Highlands County ’s Insurance Document of Coverage, a document that had previously been produced to him. This request was made directly to Mr. Carino’s office and not through Defendant Highlands County ’s counsel. Notwithstanding, the document was produced to him.

D.E. 511, ¶10, PG.4)

During this visit, Plaintiff became loud, aggressive, disruptive, and questioned the need for Mr. Carino’s presence during his review of the document.

D.E. 511, ¶11, PG.4)

Plaintiffs conduct in violation of this Court’s Orders of June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000 require a dismissal with prejudice of all of plaintiff’s claims in the above-referenced matter.

D.E. 511, ¶15, PG.5)

Since April 3, 2001 – subsequent to the Court’s March 27th Order – Plaintiff has repeatedly personally contacted supervisory employees and/or the individual Defendants about matters related to this case. Specifically, Plaintiff sent e-mail communications directly to supervisory employees of the Defendants, which discussed the “no trespass warnings” that were issued against Plaintiff, Plaintiffs tortious interference claim, as well as Allen, Norton & Blue’s “track record” of litigating appeals (including Eleventh Circuit appeals). (Exhibit 1).

(D.E. 646, ¶10, PG.3)

Clearly, Plaintiffs “no trespass” and tortious interference claims were an integral part of Plaintiffs present litigation, and involve the same set of facts that Plaintiff continues to rely on in pursuing his present claims. Indeed, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint alleged several causes of action based on the issuance of the “no trespass” warnings against Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff’s “no trespass” claims were ultimately dismissed by the Court (D.E.’s #435; 466), Plaintiff has recently indicated his intent to appeal the Court’s dismissal of all claims in his Fourth Amended Complaint. (Exhibit 2). Consequently, the issuance of the “no trespass” warnings against Plaintiff are still part of this present litigation.

(D.E. 646, ¶11, PG.4)

In addition, Plaintiff’s communications regarding Defendants’ counsel’s Eleventh Circuit “track record” clearly have no relevance to his state court claim(s), and pertain only to his federal litigation.

(D.E. 646, ¶12, PG.4)

All of Plaintiff’s claims arise from the same set of facts and are all related, and he should simply not be allowed to continuously disregard Orders of this Court and blatantly challenge the Court’s authority.

(D.E. 646, ¶13, PG.4)

Plaintiff has demonstrated a blatant disregard and disdain for this Court’s authority, as evidenced by Plaintiff’s statement that “ANYBODY, who supports your position. . . is a racist and is part of the problem. I fear no man!!! This includes white men wearing robes” and “I aint afraid of a white men wearing robes of any color.” (Exhibit 1, e-mails dated 4/03/01 at 10:57 a.m. and 4/06/01 at 8:33 a.m. respectively)

(D.E. 646, ¶14, PG.4)

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 bearing Case No. 99-14027-CIV-Graham. The case was originally assigned to then Chief Judge Edward Davis who retired. On February 20, 1999, Judge Davis allowed Mason to proceed in forma pauperis, “IFP”, or to proceed without paying the required filing fee for a lawsuit. Docket Entry No. 3. This case was ultimately assigned to 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.E 791). 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…,” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

On March 2, 2001, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners attorneys, Allen, Norton & Blue, filed a “DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IN THE FORM OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S ACTION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW“. See Docket Entry No. 511. This motion sought dismissal of the lawsuit due to alleged out of court communications with the Highlands County Government in violation the injunctions mentioned above, (DE #201) and (DE #246). On April 9, 2001, the Defendants’ filed a second motion for sanctions in the form of dismissal of Plaintiff’s lawsuit for more alleged out of court communications between Mason and the Highlands County Government. See Docket Entry No. 646. On May 31, 2001, the Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr., prepared a Report and Recommendation, “R&R”, recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed because of these out of court communications between Mason and his local government, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners. Judge Graham accepted this R&R in whole with no changes or comments.

The Case was closed on June 20, 2001. Docket Entry No. 791. A Notice of Appeal was filed on June 25, 2001. (Docket Entry 795). District Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham was assigned Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664. Consequently, the court never reached the merits of the lawsuit as there were motions for summary judgments pending when the case was closed. See Docket Sheet, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 769);(Doc. 770), and the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as well, (Doc. 507); (Doc. 667); (Doc. 668); (Doc. 706); (Doc. 797).

On September 20, 2001, Judge Graham affirmed his authority to prohibit out of communication between Mason his government, Highlands County. (“including continual attempts to directly communicate with the Defendants rather their attorneys, the Court enjoined Mason from any further contact with the Defendants or Defendants” employees. Mason, however, ignored the Court’s order and continued to contact the Defendants.”). See pg. 4, (D.E. # 878) .

Federal Magistrate John J. O’Sullivan Omits Material Facts In Order to Deceive

May 11, 2008

Judge Donald L. GrahamJudge Donald L. Graham, “Teflon Don”

Purpose of this Post

This post will take a Report and Recommendation,”R&R” of Federal Magistrate John J. O’Sullivan and demonstrate that he intentionally omitted material facts for the sole purpose of deception. Judge O’Sullivan, suggests without stating, that the Eleventh Circuit had reviewed two orders for validity when knew or should have known that they didn’t. If the Eleventh Circuit had declared the orders in question to be valid and constitutional, all Judge O’Sullivan needed to do was say so. Admittedly, this post presumes that Magistrate John J. O’Sullivan reads the documents that he references in his R&R and that he reads the documents that support a pending motion. The purpose of this post is to:

  • Question the personal integrity of Federal Magistrate John J. O’Sullivan.
  • Vindicate the personal integrity of Marcellus Mason.
  • To show the extreme measures federal judges will employ to protect each other.
  • To help make the argument that “judicial independence” equals judicial non-accountability.
  • To show how a judge can fit the “facts” around desired outcome and place the document beyond public scrutiny.
  • To demonstrate that the federal judicial process needs the disinfectant of sunlight and public scrutiny.

Magistrate John J. O’Sullivan left out the material fact that the Eleventh Circuit, on appeal, refused to discuss the validity of two orders, though fully briefed, (DE# 201 and 246), that it claimed that Marcellus Mason violated. It is really quite a remarkable story in that the Eleventh Circuit spent 14 pages talking about Mason’s supposed violations of these orders, but none talking about their validity which is the reason the appeal was filed in the first place. It could have saved itself some pages and “judicial resources” by simply recognizing the orders are not legal in the first place. However, the Eleventh Circuit chose to give the illusion of “meaningful appeal”.

Pertinent History [Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham/Lynch]

On June 15, 2000, Docket Entry 199, and July 12, 2000, Docket Entry 231, Maria Sorolis and Brian Koji, Allen, Norton Blue asked Judge Graham’s Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr., to grant them preliminary injunctions that required Mason to contact them before he could talk to the government defendants, the Highlands County Board of County Commissioners. 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 by the Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr., on June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000.

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. Additionally, these orders directed that Mason contact these same lawyers prior to making public records request under Florida law. Between June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000, Mason repeatedly challenged the jurisdiction of the district court via motions and the like. Judge Graham and the Magistrate absolutely refused to state where they got the legal authority from to issue these orders.

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.

Judge Graham has held that the above are orders are not “clearly erroneous nor is it contrary to law.” Specifically Judge Donald L. Graham held:

On June 19, 2000, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch entered an Order granting Defendants a preliminary Defendants in this action. Upon notice that Plaintiff was violating this order, Defendants filed a Renewed Motion For Preliminary Injunction. On July 25, 2000, Magistrate Judge Lynch entered an Order granting Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction, once again prohibiting Plaintiff from contacting any of the Defendants in this action or their supervisory employees. Magistrate Judge Lynch also ordered that Plaintiff shall only correspond with Defendants’ counsel.

Plaintiff then moved to rescind the July 25, 2000 order, however, on August 15, 2000, Magistrate Judge Lynch denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Rescind. Plaintiff appeals the August 15, 2000 ruling. After careful review of the file and the pertinent portions of the record, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Lynch’s ruling is not clearly erroneous nor is it contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; see also Cooper-Houston v. Southern Railway Company, 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994).

See Docket Entry No. 407 dated November 2, 2000.

Impetus Of Judge O’Sullivan’s Statement

The act that precipitated Judge O’Sullivan’s statement was a “Motion to Vacate Conviction”, in Case No. 02-14020-CR-Moore, Document No. 106. Case No. 02-14020-CR-Moore was a criminal contempt case based upon Mason’s alleged non-compliance with a clearly void sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction. This is an interesting matter in and of itself, however discussing the nature of this case is not the purpose here. For more information see, mcneilmason.wordpress.com, generally, and specifically a post entitled “Eleventh Circuit Sits Idly By While A Clearly Void Sua Sponte Issued Pre-Filing Injunction Wreaks Havoc On A Man’s Life“. The “Motion to Vacate Conviction” was filed on 07/17/2007, (D.E. #106). Among other things, this motion sought to have the following orders rendered by Judge Graham and his Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr., declared unconstitutional:

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), datd 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.

This motion sought declaratory relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) Fed.R.Civ.P. which in pertinent part states:

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (4) the judgment is void;

A Rule 60(b)(4) is not subject to any time limitation. Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000,1006 (C.A.5 (La.), 1998); Hertz Corp. v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 16 F.3d 1126, 1130 (C.A.11 (Fla.), 1994)(“the time within which a Rule 60(b)(4) motion may be brought is not constrained by reasonableness”). At page 3, this motion specifically asserts:

On October 16, 2002, the Eleventh Circuit decided the direct appeal, D.C. Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham, 11th Cir. Case No. 01-13664. In the entirety of the very verbose 14 page (unpublished) opinion, there is no discussion as to why the so-called “discovery orders”,[(D.E. #201); ,[(D.E. #246)] were or were not violative of the First Amendment; however, there is ample discussion about Mason’s so-called violation of these “discovery orders.”

At page 23, this motion specifically requests the following remedy:

A declaration that the so-called “discovery orders”, Case No. 99-14027-CV- Graham, (D.E. #201, dtd. 6-19-2000) and (D.E. #2461, dtd. 7-25-2000), are unconstitutional.

The “Motion to Vacate Conviction”, Document No. 106, uses nine pages, 15-23, of small type, 10 point, to argue that the orders are invalid and unconstitutional. Apparently, Judge O’Sullivan is unable to reach the desired outcome so he just ignores the arguments.

The Defendant, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners, in the lawsuit who was the beneficiary of the court’s largess with respect to the above orders filed no brief against this motion. Consequently, the motion should have been granted by default pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.C which states:

C. Memoranda of Law. Each party opposing a motion shall serve an opposing memorandum of law not later than ten days after service of the motion as computed in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to do so may be deemed sufficient cause for granting the motion by default.

Judge O’Sullivan’s Act of Deception

The following is a direct quote from the Report and Recommendations authored by Federal Magistrate Judge John J. O’Sullivan.

The undersigned notes that in his appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, appellate Case no. 01-13664, the defendant made essentially the same arguments he makes here with respect to Judge Lynch’s Orders (DE# 201 and 246). See Mandate (DE# 929 in 99-cv-14027-DLG, 4/18/03). The defendant argued that the Orders (DE# 201 and 246) violated his First Amendment and Florida state-law rights to petition Florida government officials and to request public records. Id. at 11. Notwithstanding the defendant’s arguments, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of case no. 99-cv-14027-DLG based on the defendant’s continued violations of the orders issued in that case. Accordingly, the defendant’s request for a declaration that Judge Lynch’s Orders (DE# 201 and 246) are unconstitutional should be DENIED.

Report and Recommendations, R&R, Doc. No. 118. If the Eleventh Circuit had declared the orders in question to be valid and constitutional, all Judge O’Sullivan needed to do was say so. Instead Judge O’Sullivan chose to engage in the act of stating deceptive truisms that purposedly evaded the issue. Every word of the Magistrate’s statement is true and there in lies the danger. When the general public or the legal community reads the statement of a federal judge they automatically assume them to be true. If a litigant disagrees with a decision of a judge, he or she is automatically branded a mere “disgruntled litigant”; consequently, the “disgruntled litigant” is not to be believed. There is another alternative and that is the Judge could be untruthful as Judge O’ Sullivan is here. The clear and unmistakable intent of Judge O’Sullivan’s statement is to suggest the orders, DE# 201 and 246, in question were reviewed for validity by the Eleventh Circuit on appeal in Case No. 01-13364. If Judge O’Sullivan read the document he referenced, DE# 929, or page 3 of the motion, Document No. 106, then he clearly would have noticed that the only review of these orders, DE# 201 and 246, consisted solely of the following statement:

On appeal, Mason argues that the magistrate’s discovery orders enjoined him without legal authority and violated his First Amendment and Florida state-law rights to petition Florida government officials and to request public records.”

DE# 929, is 17 pages consisting of three documents: (1)a cover letter from the Eleventh Circuit; (2)a mandate from the Eleventh Circuit; (3)An unpublished “opinion”, Case No. 01-13664, a direct appeal. The quoted statement comes from page 11 of the document and page 9 of the opinion. The undisputed fact is that Judge O’Sullivan was being untruthful. Yet again, Teflon Don, avoids scrutiny again.

Fifth Circuit, US Court of Appeal

The Fifth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal has rejected a similar injunction as unconstitutional. According to the Fifth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal, Test Masters Educational Services, Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 579 (Fed. 5th Cir., 2005) an order that an order enjoined a litigant “from communicating directly with, threatening, or harassing Test Masters Educational Services, Inc., its employees, its staff, or TES’s counsel, counsel’s employees, or counsel’s staff” constituted an invalid prior restraint and a unconstitutional limitation on free speech. Judge Vanessa D Gilmore in Test Masters who was reversed, while Judge Graham has escaped appellate review because the Eleventh Circuit has declined to review his orders or injunctions for validity in what has to be a record number of times. See this mcneilmason.wordpress.com posting “Eleventh Circuit Repeatedly Refuses To Review Orders For Validity“. Yet again, Judge Graham has avoided appellate rebuke while his colleagues have not be so fortunate. Judge Graham has frequently benefited by such disparate treatment. See postings, “Eleventh Circuit Uses Same Set of Facts To Reverse One Florida Judge While Affirming Another Florida Judge” and ““Teflon Don” Avoids Reversal While Colleague Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages Suffers Reversal“. The myth of the “Teflon Don” grows larger!

Pertinent History [Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham/Lynch]

On June 15, 2000, Docket Entry 199, and July 12, 2000, Docket Entry 231, Maria Sorolis and Brian Koji, Allen, Norton Blue asked Judge Graham’s Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr., to grant them preliminary injunctions that required Mason to contact them before he could talk to the government defendants, the Highlands County Board of County Commissioners. 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 by the Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr., on June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000.

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. Additionally, these orders directed that Mason contact these same lawyers prior to making public records request under Florida law. Between June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000, Mason repeatedly challenged the jurisdiction of the district court via motions and the like. Judge Graham and the Magistrate absolutely refused to state where they got the legal authority from to issue these orders.

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.

Judge Graham has held that the above are orders are not “clearly erroneous nor is it contrary to law.” Specifically Judge Donald L. Graham held:

On June 19, 2000, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch entered an Order granting Defendants a preliminary Defendants in this action. Upon notice that Plaintiff was violating this order, Defendants filed a Renewed Motion For Preliminary Injunction. On July 25, 2000, Magistrate Judge Lynch entered an Order granting Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction, once again prohibiting Plaintiff from contacting any of the Defendants in this action or their supervisory employees. Magistrate Judge Lynch also ordered that Plaintiff shall only correspond with Defendants’ counsel.

Plaintiff then moved to rescind the July 25, 2000 order, however, on August 15, 2000, Magistrate Judge Lynch denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Rescind. Plaintiff appeals the August 15, 2000 ruling. After careful review of the file and the pertinent portions of the record, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Lynch’s ruling is not clearly erroneous nor is it contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; see also Cooper-Houston v. Southern Railway Company, 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994).

See Docket Entry No. 407 dated November 2, 2000.

Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal

Case No. 01-13664. The Eleventh Circuit,
Judge Stanley F. Birch, Jr., Judge Susan H. Black, and Judge Stanley Marcus, rendered a prolix 14 page opinion on October 16, 2002 that does not discuss the validity of these orders. It is quite remarkable in that The Eleventh Circuit is single-mindedly focused on alleged out of court communications with his government by Mason as alleged violations of the orders above while steadfastly refusing to review the validity of these orders. On appeal, Mason argues that the magistrate’s discovery orders enjoined him without legal authority and violated his First Amendment and Florida state-law rights to petition Florida government officials and to request public records.” See Pg. 10. Even though The Eleventh Circuit admitted the orders in question were being tested for validity on appeal, The Eleventh Circuit refused to review these orders for validity.