U.S. Court of Appeal | Unpublished Junk Law of the Eleventh Circuit, US Court of Appeals

Posts Tagged ‘U.S. Court of Appeal’

Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal, Masters of Jugglery: Jurisdictional Challenge Converted To Summary Reversal Motion To Achieve Desired Outcome

June 28, 2008

Judge Donald L. Graham, “Teflon Don”
He’s a bad motherf^%##, Shut your mouth!

Point of This Post

This post will document how the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal, used jugglery to avoid an outcome that the facts and the law would have required. Jugglery is defined as manipulation or trickery especially to achieve a desired end. This matter concerns an appeal in the Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 01-13664 and District Court Case No. 99-14027-CIV-DLG, Judge Donald L. Graham, presiding. In this matter, the Eleventh Circuit converted a motion to determine jurisdiction that it must satisfy to a summary reversal motion that is discretionary. Having recharacterized the motion, the Eleventh Circuit, without citing any facts, simply said the summary reversal was not warranted. Simply put, the Eleventh Circuit refused to state why it had jurisdiction. This post is a part of the overall scheme to land a knockout blow to the American Bar Association’s koolaid of “Judicial Independence”. The ABA’s emphasis is on “Judicial Independence” and it resists “interference” from outsiders-Congress of the United States, Layman review boards. The ABA has said: “There are checks on the judiciary and channels to correct improper decisions. The appeal process affords litigants the opportunity to challenge a judicial ruling.” About Us – ABA Standing Committee on Judicial Independence. This is the idealistic and theoretical basis for “Judicial Independence”; however, the reality or actual practice does not equal the ideals. Suppose for a moment that such a system does not work. Federal Judges will take extreme measures to avoid disciplining a colleague federal judge. See Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell for even more dishonest jurisprudence. Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit will do anything to achieve the desired outcome. Two posts at this site, mcneilmason.wordpress.com, document how the Eleventh Circuit will do anything to achieve the desired outcome as the Eleventh took two different and inconsistent positions with respect to the jurisdiction of the lower court or Judge Graham during the appeal of this very appeal. See Eleventh Circuit: Notice of Appeal Does Not Divest District Judge of Jurisdiction of Matters Involved In the Appeal! and Putrid Dishonesty:Beyond the Scope of Appeal.

Premise

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree, It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Company Of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994). “The courts, no less than the political branches of the government, must respect the limits of their authority.” Catholic Conf. v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, 487 U.S. 72 (1988)..

ISSUE: Whether the Eleventh Circuit Had Jurisdiction of the Appeal?

The Appellant submitted a Motion To Determine Jurisdiction. The Eleventh Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court has stated in case after case that a jurisdictional challenge maybe raised at any time. Moreover, both courts have stated that all courts are under an independent obligation to review its jurisdiction even if no party raises the issue. In this matter, rather than discuss why or why it did not have jurisdiction of the appeal the Eleventh Circuit converted the Motion To Determine Jurisdiction in to a motion for summary reversal. Having converted the motion into a summary reversal, a discretionary form of relief, the Eleventh Circuit, in a mere conclusory fashion simply asserted that the standards for a summary reversal were not met. Rather than construing the Motion To Determine Jurisdiction, a pro se motion, liberally to achieve substantial justice, the Eleventh Circuit construed the motion to achieve its own end.

Eleventh Circuit’s Response to Jurisdictional Challenge

On April 15, 2002, the Eleventh Circuit stated: “Appellant’s “motion to determine jurisdiction,” and “motion to determine subject matter jurisdiction and standing,” which are construed as motions for summary reversal, and are DENIED.” See Order Denying Jurisdiction.

On May 17, 2002, the Eleventh Circuit stated:

“Appellant’s motion for clarification is GRANTED, and this Court’s April 15, 2002, Order clarified as follows: Appellant’s motions, which were construed as motions for summary reversal, were denied because Appellant failed to meet the standards for summary disposition. See Groendyke Transport v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 394 U.S. 1012, 89 S.Ct. 1628, 23 L.Ed.2d 39 (1969).”

See Order Granting Clarification.

Citing the Law and omitting the facts, an all too familiar tactic of the Eleventh Circuit, is that decisions are made with recitation to a court case with no recitation to the facts of the instant case

What Do You Know From Reading The Order?

This post was designed with the decision first for the purpose of accentuating the lack of information in decision not to discuss jurisdiction. Reading only the decision above, answer the following questions:

Why does the Eleventh Circuit have jurisdiction?
What is the law regarding jurisdiction on appeal?
What are the facts that support the decision?
Why did the Eleventh Circuit construe the motion to determine jurisdiction as a motion for summary reversal?
Who benefited by construing the motion as a motion for summary reversal?

Law On Jurisdiction

“[T]he Supreme Court has ruled that “it is not proper for federal courts to proceed immediately to a merits question despite jurisdictional objections.” In re Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association, 173 F.3d 866; 335 U.S. App. D.C. 327 (C.A.D.C. 1999)(citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 1012, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) (without proper jurisdiction, a court cannot proceed at all, but can only note the jurisdictional defect and dismiss the suit)”). “On every writ of error or appeal, the first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction, first, of this court, and then of the court from which the record comes. This question the court is bound to ask and answer for itself, even when not otherwise suggested, and without respect to the relation of the parties to it.” Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 94. See also UNITED STATES of America v. Mery GIRALDO-PRADO, 150 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 1998) (“We have noted that a party may raise jurisdiction at any time during the pendency of the proceedings.”);

In a case involving Judge Graham, United States Of America v. Machado, No. 05-11420, D. C. Docket No. 97-00238-CR-DLG, 465 F.3d 1301pgs. 8,9 (11th Cir. 2006);2006 US App (11th) 398, the Eleventh Circuit held:

We are aware, of course, that “subject-matter jurisdiction . . . can never be forfeited or waived” and “[c]onsequently, defects in subject-matter jurisdiction require correction regardless of whether the error was raised in district court,” United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630, 122 S. Ct. 1781, 1785 (2002); see also Arbaugh v. Y& H Corp., ___ U.S. ___, ___, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 1240 (2006) (“The objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction . . . may be raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after trial and the entry of judgment.”). That principle is not, however, an exception to the requirements for appellate jurisdiction, and if those requirements are not met we cannot review whether a judgment is defective, not even where the asserted defect is that the district court lacked jurisdiction.

The Eleventh Circuit had a duty to not only review its own jurisdiction, but that of the lower court as well. Even if the neither the parties raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction the Eleventh Circuit is required to do so on its motion or sua sponte. See ALFRED L. BOCHESE v. TOWN OF PONCE INLET, No. 04-11542, 405 F.3d 964 (11th Cir. 2005)(“Although the parties have not raised the issue here, we are obliged to consider, sua sponte, the question of our subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case before us.“), http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411542.pdf.

Federal courts are “obligated to inquire into subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking. “As a threshold matter, therefore, we must initially determine both whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to consider Williams’ Rule 60(b) motion and whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of his motion.” WAYNE BERTRAM WILLIAMS v. BRUCE CHATMAN, No. 06-16115 (11th Cir. 2007),,(citing Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173, 1179 (11th Cir. 2004)). “An appellate court has a duty to consider sua sponte whether appellate jurisdiction is properly invoked.” John Andrew Mattingly v. Farmers State Bank, No.98-3234 (6th Cir. 1998), ELECTRONIC CITATION: 1998 FED App. 0262P (6th Cir.) File Name: 98a0262p.06 (citing Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 740 (1976)).

“When a colorable question exists, an appellate court has an unflagging obligation to inquire sua sponte into its own jurisdiction.” Charlesbank Equity Fund Ii v. Blinds To Go, Inc., 370 F.3d 151 (1st Cir. 2004).

Construed or Screwed

“Federal courts sometimes will ignore the legal label that a pro se litigant attaches to a motion and recharacterize the motion in order to place it within a different legal category. They may do so in order to avoid an unnecessary dismissal, to avoid inappropriately stringent application of formal labeling requirements, or to create a better correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion’s claim and its underlying legal basis. ” Castro v. United States (02-6683) 540 U.S. 375 (2003). “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” United States Of America v. Pierre Castma , No. 07-13531 (11th Cir. 2005)(quoting Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1908 (2007)).See also United States Of America v. Gary William Holt, No. 04-15848, 417 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 2005)(“noting that a pro se motion should be liberally construed to afford review on any “legally justifiable base”)(citing Sanders v. United States, 113 F.3d 184, 187 (11th Cir.1997) (per curiam) (noting that a pro se motion should be liberally construed to afford review on any “legally justifiable base”)).

The clear intent of liberal construction is for the benefit of the pro se litigant and not to the detriment of the pro se litigant. In this matter, the Eleventh Circuit construed a Motion to Determine Jurisdiction to motion for summary reversal. This “construction” or recharacterization was to the detriment of Mason. The Eleventh Circuit took a mandatory motion which required it to assert facts and law to support both its jurisdiction and that of the lower court and converted it to a “summary reversal” motion. Had the Eleventh been unable to sufficiently support its jurisdiction and that of the lower court would have required a dismissal of the appeal. The Eleventh Circuit ran ahead to the finish line and saw who was going to win the race, consequently they changed the rules to guarantee the winner or outcome of the race. The Eleventh then construed the motion to determine jurisdiction into a motion for summary reversal which is a discretionary. Once the motion became discretionary, the Eleventh Circuit was free to avoid the outcome the facts would have demanded. It is difficult not to conclude that the rules were construed to achieve the desired outcome-vindication of Judge Graham.

Internal Operating Procedure

The Eleventh Circuit’s internal rules allows them to raise a jurisdictional issue at their discretion. 11th Cir. R. 31-1(e) (1999)states:

(e) Jurisdictional Question. If, upon review of the district court docket entries, order and/or judgment appealed from, and the notice of appeal, it appears that this court may lack jurisdiction over the appeal, the court may request counsel and pro se parties to advise the court in writing of their position with respect to the jurisdictional question(s) raised. The issuance of a jurisdictional question does not stay the time for filing briefs otherwise provided by this rule.

Motion To Determine Jurisdiction

Appellant’s Motion To Determine Jurisdiction was submitted on or about March 13, 2002. See Docket and Motion. This motion argued that the Eleventh Circuit did not have jurisdiction of the appeal because the alleged violations of preliminary injunctions, or orders that were granted on June 19, 2000, (DE #201), and July 25, 2000, (DE #246) were not lawful for the following reasons:

Magistrate is without legal authority to issue an injunction or a restraining order. See Motion, pps. 3,5-6.
These orders are invalid because the Defendants failed to file a complaint for an injunction or a restraining order.
These orders failed to meet the requirements for a “temporary Injunction” or “TRO”. See Motion, pg. 6,7.

Case Cited By Eleventh Circuit Supports Appellant

The Eleventh Circuit cited Groendyke Transport v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 394 U.S. 1012, 89 S.Ct. 1628, 23 L.Ed.2d 39 (1969) for the proposition that a “summary reversal” was not warranted. However, Groendyke Transport actually supports Mason’s or the Appellant position. Firstly, Groendyke Transport, like the instant case involved the question of the validity of an injunction. Groendyke Transport, set forth two conditions that would warrant a summary disposal:

“The first comprises those cases where time is truly of the essence. This includes situations where important public policy issues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied.”
Second, are those in which the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case…

The where rights delayed are rights denied position favors Mason. The injunctions issued in the instant case concerned First Amendment rights. These injunctions prohibited direct communications with the government. Secondly, one of the injunctions, (D.E. #246)(“”Plaintiff shall correspond only with Defendants’ counsel including any requests for public records.), implicated Florida Public Record requests. It is well settled and unremarkable that the “the loss of constitutional rights for even a minimal amount of time constitutes irreparable harm.” See Taubman Company v. Webfeats, 319 F.3d 770 (6th Cir. 2002). More importantly, according to the Supreme Court: “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); same 11th Cir., Cate v. Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176 (11th Cir. 1983)(“It is well settled that the loss of First Amendment freedoms for even minimal periods of time constitutes irreparable injury justifying the grant of a preliminary injunction.“); Gresham v. Windrush Partners, Ltd., 730 F.2d 1417 (11th Cir. 1984)(“first amendment rights violated sufficient to show irreparable injury because loss of first amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury“) .

The one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law condition favors Mason the appellant. The best argument in support of the appellant is lack of legal citation or facts by the Eleventh Circuit. More importantly, the law favored Mason because a Magistrate can not issue an injunction. Assuming arguendo, a Magistrate could issue an injunction, Mason would have prevailed because order fails to meet the 4 prong requirements for a preliminary injunction.

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 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,

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).

Refusal To Cite Legal Authority

Judge Graham and his Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr. have repeatedly refused to cite legal authority for these orders, (DE #201) and (DE #246), which required Mason to seek the approval of private attorneys, Allen, Norton & Blue, prior to petitioning the government. See Court Orders: (DE #201), (DE #246);(Doc. #279);(Doc. 281);(Doc. #407);(Doc. #524);(Doc. #528);(Doc. #634);(Doc. 673);(Doc. 744);(Doc. 745);(Doc. 766);(Doc. 791);(Doc. 874, pg. 2);(Doc. 882, pgs. 1-2); (DE-890); (DE-928);(DE-931)).

Tags:"ABA", 427 U.S. 347 (1976), 707 F.2d 1176 (11th Cir. 1983).Judge Donald L. Graham, 99-14027, ABA Standing Committee on Judicial Independence, American Bar Association, appeal process, appellate, Case No. 01-13664, Cate v. Oldham, challenge, colorable, construed, dishonest jurisprudence, Eleventh Circuit, Elrod v. Burns, federal courts, first amendment, Florida Public Record, idealistic, injunctions.invoked, Internal Operating Procedure, judicial decree, judicial independence, Jugglery, jurisdiction, jurisdictional, koolaid, less stringent standard, liberally construed, limited jurisdiction, Magistrate Frank Lynch Jr., manipulation, minimal periods, motion to determine jurisdiction, obligated, obliged, Pro se pleadings, properly invoked, sua sponte, subject-matter jurisdiction, summary reversal, The Appeal From Hell, trickery, U.S. Court of Appeal, usurpation, waived
Posted in Unpublished | 2 Comments »

Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sets Guiness World Record For Refusing to Review Sua Sponte Issued Pre-Filing Injunction

June 12, 2008

Judge Donald L. Graham, “Teflon Don”

Foreword

There’s an old Negro spiritual called “May the Work I’ve Done Speak for Me”. In this same spirit, this author allows the work of the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal and Judge Graham’s cohorts to speak for them. Unlike, Judge Graham, the Eleventh Circuit and his enablers apparent zeal and affinity for dishonesty, mis-characterization, omission, their work will not be characterized or mis-characterized it will be produced in full and publicly available for the reading public to make their own assessments. The record fully supports the idea that the Eleventh Circuit and its Judges and staff attorneys will take extreme, even lawless measures to protect Judge Graham. This post is part of an overall pattern and practice of using extreme measures and lawlessness to conceal the misconduct of Judge Graham. See Documented Allegations of Misconduct.

How Many Times Can a Court Refuse to Review an Order For Validity?

This post will demonstrate that the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals has set a Guinness world record for refusing to review a clearly void sua sponte pre-filing injunction that was rendered by “Teflon Don”, U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham on September 20, 2001. The Eleventh Circuit has declined to reach the merits of this sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction on multiple occasions. The denials invoke a kind of creative dishonesty. As a matter of fact, the denials are not consistent and even contradict each other on each successive attempt at appellate review. Even an ardent supporter of the system would have a hard time arguing that there is not a certain amount of dishonesty involved in the matter. The point here is that there has never been any appellate review of the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001. Yet this sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction has been used as a weapon against Marcellus Mason. The Eleventh Circuit has elevated artifice to a level that would make a shister lawyer proud. The coup de grace is the Eleventh Circuit sat idly by while this clearly void sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction was used to form the basis of a criminal contempt complaint and conviction. See this outrageous story, “Eleventh Circuit Sits Idly By While A Clearly Void Sua Sponte Issued Pre-Filing Injunction Wreaks Havoc On A Man’s Life“.

Judicial Independence

This post also makes vividly clear why federal judges cannot and should not be trusted to discipline themselves. The information provided in this post is not only true, but you would not be able to get this information anywhere else. The Eleventh Circuit relies on ignorance and the public’s willingness to believe that its federal judges are honest, diligent, and trustworthy. America should not drink the American Bar Association’s, “ABA”, koolaid of judicial independence.

The Sua Sponte Issued Pre-Filing Injunction

On September 20, 2001, Judge Graham rendered a pre-fling injunction sua sponte, or on his own motion and without notice to the litigant Marcellus M. Mason. See Docket Entry Number 878, (D.E. # 878) . Page 3, of this document boldly asserts: THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte. This type of injunction is commonly referred to under several different names: “leave to file injunction”, “vexatious litigant injunction”, “pre-filing injunction”, “filing injunction”, “1651 injunction”. This order was rendered when the matter had been on appeal since June 25, 2001. This fact creates a potential jurisdictional problem. See Post, “Eleventh Circuit: Notice of Appeal Does Not Divest District Judge of Jurisdiction of Matters Involved In the Appeal!” to see how the Eleventh Circuit dishonestly handled this problem. For specific case law on sua sponte issued injunctions, see Case Law On Pre-Filing Injunctions, below. This same sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction that Mason was not notice given notice and opportunity to respond to makes a so-called “finding of bad faith” that was subsequently used to award a heavily insured governmental entity attorney’s fees of $200,000. At pages 5,6, this sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction asserts:

It has become clear to the Court that Mason is proceeding in bad faith. Indeed, he has admitted as much in his own pleadings and correspondence…Such activity is in bad faith and will not be permitted by the Court.

A finding of bad faith requires due process as well. ” “A court must, of course, exercise caution in invoking its inherent power, and it must comply with the mandates of due process, both in determining that the requisite bad faith exists and in assessing fees,..” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 50 (1991). See also Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075 (11th Cir., 2001)(A court should be cautious in exerting its inherent power and “must comply with the mandates of due process, both in determining that the requisite bad faith exists and in assessing fees.” ). See Judge Donald L. Graham Awards $200,000 Attorney’s Fees Against An Indigent. Apparently, Judge Graham does not have to do a damn thing even if the United States Supreme requires it.

Case No. 01-13664-A, Direct Appeal

The unpublished opinion rendered in this matter is a joke and model of dishonesty and deserved its own page and is a must read, see “Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell”

This appeal was docketed under Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664. The Notice of Appeal was filed on June 27, 2001. See Docket No. 795.

On Mar. 6, 2002, the court strikes the Appellants’ Brief arguing against the September 20, 2001 order. The court states the order is “beyond the scope of appeal”. Court orders Mason to go through the expense of filing new briefs that have no reference to the September 20, 2001.

On Apr. 23, 2002, Court Strikes Appellees brief for citing the order of September 20, 2001.However court refuses to make Appellees file new briefs as they did the Appellant.

On Oct. 16, 2002, the Court, Stanley F. Birch, Jr.,Susan H. Black, and Stanley Marcus, affirms Judge Graham.At pg. 14, Court specifically uses the September 20, 2001 that it stated to Mason was “beyond the scope of appeal”.

“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 districts court’s implicit finding that a sanction less than dismissal of the action with prejudice would have no effect.”

Case No, 01-15754, Mandamus

The Judges responsible for making this decision are Judges Susan H. Black, Rosemary Barkett, and Stanley Marcus. The Eleventh Circuit received a mandamus petition that was docketed as being received on October 2, 2001. See Receipt. This is a 25 page petition plus exhibits. Microsoft Word Format, html format, and pdf format. This petition attacks the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001. The Eleventh Circuit Court had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 from the moment the injunction of September 20, 2001 was issued even if the case was not closed like the matter at bar. According to the Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit’s own binding precedents, this mandamus petition should have been treated as a notice of appeal. The Defendant, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners, and U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham also received a copy of the mandamus petition. Judge Graham did not file a brief in opposition to the petition. The Defendant did not file a responsive brief to the petition. The Eleventh Circuit did not require anyone to respond the petition.

For more on this mandamus, see this site post “Eleventh Circuit Disses The U.S. Supreme Court Chooses To Protect Judge Graham”

In reply to the 25 page petition on December 5, 2001, the Eleventh Circuit rendered the following “Opinion”:

“The “petition for writ of mandamus and petition for writ of prohibition” is DENIED.” See “Opinion“, Case No. 01-15754.

Mason filed a motion for clarification seeking to know the basis upon which the decision was made or what the opinion stood for, however the Eleventh Circuit declined to discuss the matter.

Rehearing Denied

On January 25, 2002, the Eleventh Circuit denied a motion for clarification:

Petitioner’s “motion for reconsideration and clarification” of this Court’s December 5, 2001, Order, is DENIED as Petitioner has offered no reason sufficient to warrant either reconsideration or clarification of this Court’s Order.

Rehearing Denied

On or about February 06, 2004, Judges Susan H. Black, Rosemary Barkett, and Stanley Marcus were sent certified letters begging them to decide this matter. However, each of them declined to respond or do anything.

Case No. 01-16218

Judge Frank Hull rendered this opinion. On January 8, 2002, the Eleventh Circuit stated:

Although Mason has not filed a from the district court’s order denying IFP or the omnibus order requiring Mason to get court approval before filing any additional pleadings or lawsuits, Mason may raise all of these issues on appeal. See generally, Procup v. Strickland, 760 F.2d 1107 (11 th Cir. 1985) (reviewing the district court’s order enjoining a defendants from filing additional pleadings unless they were first submitted by an attorney admitted to practice in that court); United States v. Bailey, 175 F.3d 966 (11th Cir. 1999) (reviewing a district court’s decision not to recuse itself for abuse of discretion); Camp v. Oliver, 798 F.2d 434 (11th Cir. 1996) (reviewing district court’s order denying IFP for abuse of discretion).

See Opinion Case No. 01-16218.

Case No. 02-11476-A

On May 1, 2002, the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Joel F. Dubina, stated:

Mason also requests that this Court vacate the district court’s order enjoining Mason from to Mason’s former employment without first receiving permission from the district court. Although Mason has not filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s order requiring him to receive the permission of the district court from filing any additional pleadings or from filing any new lawsuits related to his former employment or subsequent interactions with the defendants, Mason may raise this issue on appeal. See generally, Procup v. Strickland, 760 F.2d 1107 (11th Cir. 1985) (reviewing the district court’s order enjoining a defendant from filing additional pleadings unless they were first submitted by an attorney submitted by an attorney admitted to practice in that court). Mason has an adequate alternative remedy on appeal regarding this issue.

See Opinion Case No. 02-11476-A. This is quite a remarkable and incredible statement by Judge Dubina in that by May 1, 2002, as fully set forth above, the Eleventh Circuit has already declined to review this sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction twice. See above, Case No. 01-15754 denied mandamus on December 5, 2001, and Case No. 01-13664-A, the brief was stricken on March 6, 2002 because it was said to be “beyond the scope of appeal”, then the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction used against Mason on October 16, 2002.

Case No. 02-14646, Mandamus

Judges R. Lanier Anderson, Joel F. Dubina, and Charles R. Wilson names are on this decision. On Oct. 7, 2002, the Eleventh Circuit stated:

This Appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant Marcellus Mason’s notice of appeal, filed on June 24, 2002, is untimely from the district court’s order enjoining him from filing additional pleading, entered on September 21, 2001.

Case No. 04-11894, Mandamus

Judges Ed Carnes and Frank M. Hull names appear on this opinion. On May 20, 2004, the Eleventh Circuit, among other things, admits to the following:

(2) vacatur of all of the decisions Judge Graham made in his case, including a September 20, 2001 order; (3) this Court to direct Judge Moore to dismiss his contempt case, number 02-14020-CR-KMM; and (4) this Court to issue an “emergency stay” with respect to the contempt case.

pg. 1, Opinion Case No. 04-11894.

At page 3, the Court asserts:

Moreover, Mason had an adequate alternative remedy to mandamus relief in that he could have timely appealed the September 20, 2001 order, but did not do so.

See pg. 3, Opinion Case No. 04-11894

Case No. 05-10623-I, Mandamus

Judge Rosemary Barkett made this decision. On March 16, 2005, the Eleventh Circuit, among other things, admits to the following:

[V]acate all decisions and rulings by Judge Graham in this case since February 1999, including the September 20, 2001 order enjoining him for filing any pleadings or additional related lawsuit without court; permission.

See Opinion pg. 1, Case No. 05-10623-I.

At pg. 2, the Eleventh Circuit asserted the following:“Furthermore, Mason appealed the dismissal of his case as well as the district court’s injunction order of September of 20, 2001...” See Pg. 2.

This statement is directly contradicted by the Eleventh Circuit’s prior assertion of May 20, 2004, Case No. 04-11894, pg. 4:”Moreover, Mason had an adequate remedy to mandamus relief in that he could have timely appealed the September 20, 2001, but did not do so.”

The Eleventh Circuit has declined to review the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction on other occasions as well. See Appellate History.

The U.S. Supreme Court,”SCOTUS”, On the Importance of Due Process

In a long line of cases, the United States Supreme Court has held that impingements of constitutional rights are, without variation, subject to the strictures of “due process” or notice and opportunity to be heard prior to their enactments. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950); Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (1951); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972); Owen v. City Of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980); Carey v.Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259 (1978); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976).

Right of Access To Courts is Constitutionally Protected

The right of access to the Courts is clear according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977);M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). The Supreme court has stated the right of access to the courts also protected by the First Amendment. BE&K Construction CO. v. National Labor Relations Board et al. 536 U.S. 516 (2001)(“the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government,” and that “[t]he right of access to the courts is … but one aspect of the right of petition.“). California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U. S. 508, 510 (1972)(“The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition.“). See Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004)(recognizing “the fundamental right of access to the courts”); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974)(“The constitutional guarantee of due process of law has as a corollary the requirement that prisoners be afforded access to the courts in order to challenge unlawful convictions and to seek redress for violations of their constitutional rights.“).

Case Law On Pre-Filing Injunctions

US CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAVE ROUTINELY REJECTED “SUA SPONTE” PRE-FILING INJUNCTIONS.

A long line of United States appellate courts, including the Eleventh Circuit, have rejected sua sponte issuances of pre-filing injunctions because they are violations of due process. In Smith v. United States, 2010U.S. App. LEXIS 14050,*;386 Fed. Appx. 853 (11th Cir. 2010) , the
Eleventh Circuit held:

“Numerous persuasive authorities support the idea that due process requires notice and a hearing before a court sua sponte enjoins a party from filing further papers in support of a frivolous claim…Smith’s filing can therefore be construed as a motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). A judgment is void under that rule “‘if the court that rendered it . . . acted in a manner inconsistent [*8] with due process of law.'”..We therefore vacate and remand so that the district court may consider imposing a lesser restriction that will protect against abusive filings without improperly restricting Smith’s right of access to the courts. If the district court decides that an injunction is necessary, Smith should be provided with an opportunity to oppose the injunction before it is instituted. “

It is remarkable that the Eleventh Circuit, sua sponte, or on its own motion, initiated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) to reverse Judge Maurice Mitchell Paul. Also, in Weaver v. Leon County Sch. Bd., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8128 (11^th Cir. 2006), the Eleventh Circuit held that a litigant was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before a restriction was imposed on his ability to challenge an injunction. U.S. v. Powerstein, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 14928,*;185 Fed. Appx. 811 (11th Cir. 2006)(litigant entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before the court imposed the injunctive order ). See Sires v. Fair, 107 F.3d 1;1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 2173 (1^st Cir. 1997); Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island , 985 F.2d 32 (C.A.1 (R.I.), 1993) (vacating a pre-fling injunction issued without notice); MLE Realty Assocs. v. Handler, 192 F.3d 259, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 23362 (2^nd Cir. 1999) ; Lau v. Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 121 (2^nd Cir. 2000) ; Holton v. Oral Surg. Sing Sing Corr., 24 Fed. Appx. 37; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 25151 (2^nd Cir. 2001); Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 208 (C.A.2 (N.Y.), 1998) (district court may not impose a filing injunction on a litigant without providing the litigant with notice and an opportunity to be heard.); Gonzales v. Feiner, 131 Fed. Appx. 373, * 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 8370, ** (3^rd Cir. 2005) ; Wiliams v. Cambridge Integrated Servs. Group , 148 Fed Appx. 87, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 18624 (3^rd Cir. 2005) ; Brow v. Farrelly, 994 F.2d 1027 (C.A.3 (Virgin Islands), 1992)(vacating a sua sponte issued injunction); It is imperative that the court afford the litigant notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to issuing such an injunction. In Re Head, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8265,*;174 Fed. Appx. 167 (4^th Cir. 2006)(vacated a 10 yr. old sua sponte injunction);Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 819 (4th Cir. 2004)(vacating a pre-filing injunction issued without notice); Tucker v. Drew, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 11784 (4 ^thCir. 1994) ;DOUGLAS BAUM v. BLUE MOON VENTURES, LLC , 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 91,*;513 F.3d 181;49 Bankr. Ct. Dec. 68 (5th Cir. 2008)(“Notice and a hearing are required if the district court sua sponte imposes a pre-filing injunction or sua sponte modifies an existing injunction to deter vexatious filings.”) ;De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9^th Cir.) ; Roscoe v. Hansen, 107 F.3d 880;1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 4996 (10^th Cir. 1997); Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20966,*;500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007)(litigant must be given notice and a chance to be heard before the [injunctive] order is entered.); Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351,354 (C.A.10 (Wyo.), 1989)(vacated and holding that the litigant is entitled to notice and an opportunity to oppose the court’s order before it is instituted.); Procup v. Strickland, 567 F.Supp. 146 (M.D. Fla., 1983)(court issued a show cause order) Procup v. Strickland, 760 F.2d 1107, 1110 (C.A.11 (Fla.), 1985) (held that district court did give adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before issuance of the injunction); Cofield v. Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm., 936 F.2d 512, 514 (11th Cir.1991)(noting that court issued show cause order prior to rendering pre-fling injunction); In re Powell, 851 F.2d 427, 431 (D.C.Cir.1988)(reversing and holding If a pro se litigant is to be deprived of such a vital constitutional right as access to the courts, he should, at least, be provided with an opportunity to oppose the entry of an order restricting him before it is entered.); Martin v. Circuit Court, 627 So.2d 1298 (Fla.App. 4 Dist., 1993)(reversing a pre-filing order and holding that limiting the constitutional right of access to the courts, essential due process safeguards must first be provided); Lawsuits of Carter, In re, 510 S.E.2d 91, 95; 235 Ga.App. 551 (Ga. App., 1998)(reversing a pre-filing injunction because notice or an opportunity not given);Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277, 1296 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that injunctions “may not be expanded beyond the meaning of its terms absent notice and an opportunity to be heard.”).

Courts have felt that the notice and opportunity to respond was so important that they have reversed district courts even where they thought the pre-filing injunction was otherwise valid. See Oliver, In re, 682 F.2d 443, 446 (C.A.3 (Pa.), 1982); Scott v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage , 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 15709,*;143 Fed. Appx. 525(4^th Cir. 2005);Gagliardi v. McWilliams, 834 F.2d 81, 83 (3d Cir. 1987). The United States Supreme Court has stated: A court must, of course, exercise caution in invoking its inherent power, and it must comply with the mandates of due process, both in determining that the requisite bad faith exists and in assessing fees. (emphasis added) Chambers v.Nasco, Inc.,501U.S. 32, 50 (1991).

Pre-filing Restrictions

1. Plaintiff Marcellus M. Mason is Permanently enjoined

from filing any additional pleadings in case numbers 99-14027- CIV-GRAHAM, 00-14116-CIV-GRAHAM, 00-14201-CIV-GRAHAM, 00-I4202- CIV-GRAHAM, 00-14240-CIV-GRAHAM, 01-14074-CIV-GRAHAM, 01-14078- CIV-GRAHAM, and 01-14230-CIV-GRAHAM or from filing any new lawsuit which relates in any way to Plaintiff Marcellus M. Mason’s former employment and/or subsequent interactions with Defendants without first receiving permission from the Court, as set forth below. This injunction shall apply equally to any persons or entities acting at the behest, direction, or instigation, or in concert with Marcellus M. Mason.

2. Any request for permission to file a new lawsuit relating to the issues in the above captioned cases and/or Mason’s former employment and/or subsequent interactions with Defendants SHALL be in the form of an application filed with the Clerk of Court and addressed to United States District Judge Donald L. Graham. This application shall consist of a one paragraph explanation of the issues in the proposed lawsuit, shall contain the names of all proposed parties and shall not exceed one page. The application shall not include any proposed pleadings.

See Docket Entry No. 878.

Tags:* 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 8370, ** (3rd Cir. 2005), *;143 Fed. Appx. 525(4th Cir. 2005);Gagliardi v. McWill, *;174 Fed. Appx. 167 (4th Cir. 2006), *;185 Fed. Appx. 811 (11th Cir. 2006), *;500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007), *;513 F.3d 181;49 Bankr. Ct. Dec. 68 (5th Cir. 2008), 107 F.3d 1;1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 2173 (1st Cir. 1997), 107 F.3d 880;1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 4996 (10th Cir. 1997), 1296 (11th Cir. 2002), 131 Fed. Appx. 373, 147 F.3d 207, 148 Fed Appx. 87, 174 (1951), 175 F.3d 966 (11th Cir. 1999), 192 F.3d 259, 1982); Scott v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, 1989), 1993), 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 11784 (4 th Cir. 1994), 1998), 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 23362 (2nd Cir. 1999), 2001, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 25151 (2nd Cir. 2001), 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 15709, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 18624 (3rd Cir. 2005), 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 14928, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8128 (11th Cir. 2006), 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8265, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20966, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 91, 208 (C.A.2 (N.Y.), 229 F.3d 121 (2nd Cir. 2000), 24 Fed. Appx. 37, 281 U. S. 673, 281 U. S. 681., 307 F.3d 1277, 338 (1967), 339 U.S. 306 (1950), 341 U.S. 123, 341 U.S. 123 (1951); Goldberg v. Kelly, 354 (C.A.10 (Wyo.), 388 U.S. 307, 390 F.3d 812(4th Cir. 2004), 397 U.S. 254 (1970), 404 U. S. 508 (1972), 407 U.S. 67 (1972), 416 U.S. 396 (1974), 424 U.S. 319(1976)., 430 U.S. 817 (1977), 431 (D.C.Cir.1988), 435 U.S. 247 (1978) Mathews v. Eldridge, 445 U.S. 622 (1980), 446 (C.A.3 (Pa.), 50 (1991), 510 S.E.2d 91, 514 (11th Cir.1991), 519 U.S. 102 (1996), 541 U.S. 509 (2004)(recognizing "the fundamental right, 627 So.2d 1298 (Fla.App. 4 Dist., 682 F.2d 443, 760 F.2d 1107 (11 th Cir. 1985), 798 F.2d 434 (11th Cir. 1996), 834 F.2d 81 (3d Cir. 1987)., 851 F.2d 427, 878 F.2d 351, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir.) ; Roscoe v. Hansen, 936 F.2d 512, 95; 235 Ga.App. 551 (Ga. App., 985 F.2d 32 (C.A.1 (R.I.), 994 F.2d 1027 (C.A.3 (Virgin Islands) 1992), Add new tag, adequate alternative remedy, and Stanley Marcus, Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, Appellate Review, bad faith, BE&K Construction CO. v. National Labor Relations B, beyond the scope of appeal, binding precedents, Bounds v. Smith, Brinkerhoff-Faris Co. v. Hill, Brow v. Farrelly, California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, Camp v. Oliver, Carey v.Piphus, Case No. 01-15754, Case No. 01-13664, Case No. 01-16218, Case No. 02-11476-A, Case No. 02-14646, Case No. 04-11894, Case No. 05-10623-I, Chambers v.Nasco, Charles R. Wilson, Cofield v. Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm., Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island, Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., De Long v. Hennessey, dishonesty, DOUGLAS BAUM v. BLUE MOON VENTURES, Eleventh Circuit, filing injunction, Frank M. Hull, Fuentes v. Shevin, Gonzales v. Feiner, Guinness world record, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners, Holton v. Oral Surg. Sing Sing Corr., IFP, in forma pauperis, In re, In Re Head, In re Powell, INC., Inc. 501U.S. 32, inherent power, Joel F. Dubina, Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, Jr., Judge Frank Hull, Judges R. Lanier Anderson, judicial independence, jurisdictional, Lack of Jurisdiction, Lau v. Meddaugh, Lawsuits of Carter, LLC, M.L.B. v. S.L.J., mandamus, mandamus petition, Martin v. Circuit Court, MLE Realty Assocs. v. Handler, Moates v. Barkley, MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., non-accountability, notice of appeal, Oliver, Owen v. City Of Independence, petition for writ of prohibition, pre-filing injunction of September 20, pre-fling injunction, Procup v. Strickland, Rehearing Denied, Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., Rosemary Barkett, scope of appeal, Sires v. Fair, Stanley F. Birch, sua sponte, Supreme Court, Susan H. Black, teflon don, Tennessee v. Lane, Tripati v. Beaman, Tucker v. Drew, U.S. Court of Appeal, U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham, U.S. v. Powerstein, United States v. Bailey, vacatur, vexatious litigant injunction, Walker v. City Of Birmingham, Weaver v. Leon County Sch. Bd., Wiliams v. Cambridge Integrated Servs. Group
Posted in Appeal, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Rights, Contempt For Rule of Law, Disdain For Clearly Established Law, Due Process, Eleventh Circuit, first amendment, Judge Donald L. Graham, nonpublication, Right of Access To The Courts, Unpublished, Void Orders | 52 Comments »

Chief Circuit Judge J.L. Edmondson Uses Perfect Scam of Negative Definition To Defeat Complaints of Misconduct Under the Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act

June 8, 2008

Justice Turned On Its Head

Judge Donald L. Graham, The “Teflon Don”

Purpose of this Post

This entire blog or website, mcneilmason.wordpress.com, is dedicated to illustrating the extreme measures that judges at the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal have deployed to keep from disciplining U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham, “Teflon Don”, for abusive behavior and misconduct. The overall scheme of all methods (direct appeal, mandamus, lawsuit, misconduct complaints) of disciplining federal judges have been undermined and defeated by Judge Graham’s cohorts at the Eleventh Circuit, see http://mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm. States with have removed judges from office for the conduct that is listed in this post and elsewhere. This post will examine the perfect scam that Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson has used to defeat claims of judicial misconduct under the Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. § 351, et.seq. The perfect scam is a “negative definition” of judicial misconduct. A negative definition is a “definition which states what a thing is NOT rather than what it is.” http://academic.csuohio.edu/polen/LC9_Help/2/25negative.htm. Judge Edmondson does not define misconduct he simply disagrees with every act that alleges misconduct in the complaint is judicial misconduct. Consequently, a negative definition is used to define judicial misconduct out of existence. Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson’s definition, or lack thereof, would suggest that federal judges are held to a lower standard than state court judges. Congress does not help as it chosen not to identify specific acts that it considers to be judicial misconduct for it has abrogated this responsibility and left it up to judges like Judge Edmondson to decide. Section 352 states:

(b) Action by Chief Judge Following Review.— After expeditiously reviewing a complaint under subsection (a), the chief judge, by written order stating his or her reasons, may—
(1) dismiss the complaint—
(A) if the chief judge finds the complaint to be—
(i) not in conformity with section 351 (a);
(ii) directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling; or
(iii) frivolous, lacking sufficient evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has occurred, or containing allegations which are incapable of being established through investigation; or

It is a well known fact that Chief Judges summarily dismiss complaints of misconduct at a rate greater than 90 per cent. This is part of the reason why Justice Stephen Breyer was selected by the then Chief Justice Rehnquist to do a study of the problem. At the urging of Congressman James Sensenbrenner, former Chairman, U.S. House Judiciary Committee, in 2004, a committee was formed (The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study Committee) by Chief Judge Rehnquist to study the problem of federal judicial discipline. Judge Edmondson is of the apparent belief that legal error and judicial misconduct are mutually exclusive. As a consequence of this narrow view, Judge Graham can put on his robe and do anything he damn well pleases because “legal error” is not judicial misconduct.

Other Tactics Used by Judge Edmondson

The use of the negative definition tactic is fatal enough by itself to demolish almost all complaints of judicial misconduct. However, Judge Edmondson has used at least three other tactics that augment the negative definition tactic. Judge Edmondson has used:

Mischaracterization. Judge Edmondson characterizes your allegations of misconduct and abuse in such a manner that they fit easily within the categories for summary dismissal. For an example, see Complaint No. 05-0011.
Omission. Judge Edmondson omits specific allegations of misconduct and abuse from his summary dismissals. For example, in complaint No. 01-0054, Judge Edmondson states: “The allegations of the Complaint are “directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling” and/or ‘Action on the complaint is no longer necessary because of intervening events, and therefore moot”. Consequently, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(3)(A) and (3)(B) and Addendum Three Rule 4 (a)(2), this Complaint is DISMISSED.”
Fails to test allegations of misconduct for veracity. Judge Edmondson does not test allegations of misconduct and abuse for veracity.
Failure to Investigate. Judge Edmondson does not investigate allegations of misconduct and abuse. Judge Edmondson does not ask the complainant for more information to support a charge, he simply states that the charge lacks factual support.

Specific examples of the above are set forth below in the “Not Judicial Misconduct” heading. When told of these allegations, Judge Graham’s Chief Judge, S.D. Fla., Federico Moreno offered the following tepid “endorsement”:

I am in receipt of your letter written to me as a Chief Judge of the Southern District of Florida about actions by Judge Donald Graham. In that letter, you also complained about the Chief Circuit Judge J.L. Edmondson. As you can understand one district judge cannot review the actions of another district judge. This rule applies to the Chief Judge of the District as well. It is before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta that any complaint as to a ruling made by a District Judge can be made, I assure you that any decision rendered by Judge Graham was made in good faith upon what he perceived to be the law. Judge Graham has an impeccable reputation. However, if you feel that a judge has erred, the appellate judges in Atlanta are the ones who can decide what to do about it. Thank you for writing.

See Letter dated April 4, 2008.

Judicial Misconduct Complaints

The following complaints have been lodged against Teflon Don.

Not Judicial Misconduct

Judge Edmondson has expressly stated that each of the following documented acts of misconduct are not misconduct under the Act.

Lying and Intentionally misrepresenting the law.
Refusing to rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction during the entire pendency of the lawsuit from November 1999 to June 20, 2001 or about 19 months.
Judge Graham falsely completed a Civil Justice Reform Act Report, “CJRA” to conceal the fact that he had a motion for a preliminary injunction pending for more than 17 months.
Usurping authority by allowing a Magistrate, Frank Lynch Jr., to issue preliminary injunctions two times.
Usurping authority by allowing a Magistrate to dictate to a non-lawyer that he must seek the permission of private attorneys in order to speak with a local government.
Usurping authority by allowing a Magistrate to set restrictions on how Florida Public Records are to be accessed.
Allowing scores of motions to go undecided for months.
Intentionally misstating material facts in order to render a pre-filing injunction.
Disrespecting several well-established Supreme Court decisions proscribing certain acts of Judges.
Judge Graham has repeatedly and improperly denied access to the courts by arbitrarily denying in forma pauperis, “IFP”, petitions 18 separate times.
Judge Graham has been involved in possible criminal behavior by issuing a void sua sponte pre-filing injunction which ultimately formed the basis of a criminal contempt complaint and conviction.
Judge Graham used the criminal contempt process to force the withdrawal of a lawsuit.
Judge Graham awarded a massive $200,000 in attorney’s fees to Highlands County against an indigent plaintiff, Marcellus Mason, not on the quality of the underlying lawsuit, but based upon Judge Graham’s speculation about Mason’s motive.
Judge Graham attempted to circumvent the appellate process by using intimidation.

These allegations and others fully documented at: (1)http://mmason.freeshell.org/CoreAllegations.htm; or (2)Documented Acts of Misconduct by U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham. As of this date, the Judges at the Eleventh Circuit have allowed Teflon Don to escape rebuke and condemnation as Judge Graham has not been punished in any way for these acts. For example, many of these allegations were mentioned in a direct appeal and simply ignored by the appellate panel, see “Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell“. Petitions for mandamus met with a similar fate, see for example, Case No. 01-15754, “Eleventh Circuit Disses The U.S. Supreme Court Chooses To Protect Judge Graham“. Judge Graham’s behavior easily fits within positively defined definitions of judicial misconduct.

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT DEFINED

Judicial Misconduct has been defined by Jeffrey M. Shaman, DePaul University Law, Steven Lubet, Professor, Northwestern University Law, James J. Alfini President and Dean, South Texas College of Law, U.S. Judge Alex Kozinski, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in part as:

Judicial action taken without any arguable legal basis —and without giving notice and an opportunity to be heard to the party adversely affected—is far worse than simple error or abuse of discretion; it’s an abuse of judicial power that is “prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.” See 28 U.S.C. § 351(a); Shaman, Lubet & Alfini, supra, § 2.02, at 37 (“Serious legal error is more likely to amount to misconduct than a minor mistake.

See Opinion online at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/
F822E1DE5540855A8825708B0081F154/$file/0389037o.pdf?openelement .

“[A] judge is guilty of “oppression in office” when that judge intentionally commits acts which he or she knows, or should know, are obviously and seriously wrong under the circumstances and amount to an excessive use of judicial authority.” State v. Colclazier, 2002 OK JUD 1, 106 P.3d 138.

“Where honesty or integrity are at issue, a single action can result in a finding of judicial misconduct.” In re District Judge Ronald F. Kilburn, Case No. 90-478, (Vermont Supreme Court 1991)(citing In re Hill, 152 Vt. 548, 572-75, 568 A.2d 361, 373-75 (1989)). See http://dol.state.vt.us/SUPCT/157/op90-478.txt.

“Canon 3A(5) is violated where there is a pattern of unreasonable delay or where a particular instance is so lacking in legitimate justification that it is willful. See Matter of Long, 244 Kan. 719, 724, 772 P.2d 814, 818 (1989) (Canon 3A(5) violated where delay is “significant, extensive, and unjustified”); Sommerville, 364 S.E.2d at 23 n.3 (sanctions appropriate under Canon 3A(5) where there is a pattern of delay resulting from either willful neglect of, or manifest inability to effectively perform, judicial duties); Matter of Alvino, 100 N.J. 92, 97 n.2, 494 A.2d 1014, 1016 n.2 (1985) (delay can violate Canon 3A(5) if “willful” or “typical of the judge’s work”);” See URL:http://www.libraries.vermont.gov/SUPCT/157/op90-478.txt.

“Legal error and judicial misconduct are not mutually exclusive.” In Re Feinberg, 5 NY3d 206,New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

The University of New Mexico, Institute of Public Law, Judicial Education Center, has put together a Judicial Ethics Handbook which defines judicial misconduct.

If Judge Edmondson had an affirmative definition like the ones described above, then Judge Graham would have to disciplined. If the states are able to cite and list specific examples of judicial misconduct, then there is no reason why the federal judiciary can not do the same. To simply say, no that is not misconduct as Judge Edmondson does reflexively, is not enough.

Pending Judicial Misconduct Complaints

It has been said that the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, has become quite serious in investigating federal judges for misconduct. According to law.com, in March of this year, the Judicial Conference adopted the first-ever binding nationwide procedures for handling complaints of judicial misconduct. As a result of this, Mason submitted to complaints to both the Judicial Conference and Judge Edmondson again.

Tags:$200, 000, 100 N.J. 92, 152 Vt. 548, 28 U.S.C. § 351, 568 A.2d 361, abusive behavior, appellate process, Canon 3A(5), Chief Judge Rehnquist, Civil Justice Reform Act Report, CJRA, complainant, Congressman James Sensenbrenner, criminal behavior, criminal contempt, DePaul University Law, direct appeal, directly related to the merits of a decision or procedu, disciplining, Eleventh Circuit, extreme measures, Failure to Investigate, florida public records, Frank Lynch Jr., Honesty, IFP, in forma pauperis, In re Hill, integrity, intentionally misrepresenting the law, Jeffrey M. Shaman, Judge Federico Moreno, judicial duties, Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act, Justice Stephen Breyer, lawsuit, Legal error, Lying, Magistrate, mandamus, Matter of Alvino, methods, Mischaracterization, misconduct, misconduct complaints, misstating material facts, negative definition, Not Judicial Misconduct, notice and an opportunity to be heard, omission, pattern of delay, perfect scam, pre-filing injunction, preliminary injunction, scam, scheme, speculation, sua sponte, summarily dismiss, tactics, teflon don, The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study Committee, U.S. Court of Appeal, U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham, undermined, Usurping authority, veracity, Willful, willful neglect
Posted in Eleventh Circuit, Judge Donald L. Graham, Judicial Misconduct, U.S. Court of Appeal, Unpublished | 10 Comments »

Is U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham Willfully Defying The United States Supreme Court?

May 31, 2008

Justice Turned On Its Head

Judge Donald L. Graham, The “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).

“”Thumbing your nose at the U.S. Supreme Court is almost unheard of in the judicial system,” said Kary Moss, ACLU of Michigan Executive Director.” U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham made a command decision on his own motion to restrict Marcellus M. Mason’s right of access to the courts without giving him due process of law or notice and opportunity’s respond prior to the issuance of a pre-filing injunction on September 20, 2001. This denial represents an apparent snub and disdain for the United States Supreme Court and the Congress. Even more outrageous, is that the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal, has given its stamp of approval to Judge Graham’s disdain and contempt for the United States Supreme Court. The Eleventh Circuit has made the value judgment that Judge Graham’s career and reputation is more important than the life of a nobody like Marcellus M. Mason Jr. If Judge Graham and his enablers won’t respect the law and the United States Supreme Court then who should?

The Act That Defies the U.S. Supreme Court

On September 20, 2001, Judge Graham rendered a pre-fling injunction sua sponte, or on his motion and without notice to the litigant Marcellus M. Mason. See Docket Entry Number 878, (D.E. # 878) . Page 3, of this document boldly asserts: THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte. APPELLATE HISTORY. This injunction is commonly referred to under several different names: “leave to file injunction”, “vexatious litigant injunction”, “pre-filing injunction”, “filing injunction”, “1651 injunction”. This same injunction that was issued without notice and opportunity to respond also makes a “finding of bad faith”. At pages 5 and 6, Judge Graham specifically states:

It has become clear to the Court that Mason is proceeding in bad faith…Such activity is in bad faith and will not be permitted by the Court.

The sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction is unlawful for numerous reasons.

Definition of Willful

WILLFULLY – Committed voluntarily and purposely, with the specific intent to do something; voluntarily and intentionally assisting or advising another to do something that the person knows disobeys or disregards the law. A person does not act “willfully” if the person acts as a result of a good faith misunderstanding of the requirements of the law. See http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/w014.htm

Premise of This Post

Is Judge Donald L. Graham guilty of willfully defying the orders and opinions of the United States Supreme Court? If the reader wants to believe that Judge Graham is not willfully defying the United States Supreme Court in this case, then the reader will have to necessarily assume that Judge Graham is too stupid to know the law or is not competent. Judge Graham is many things, but not stupid and incompetent. This post will demonstrate that Judge Graham is arrogant and reckless. Defenders of Judge Graham who would say that his behavior has not been willful in this matter would have to make the following assumptions:

Well established legal principles that Judge Graham is legally presumed to know the law is not applicable in this matter.
Judge Graham, a federal Judge since 1992, has not read or is not otherwise familiar with the Eleventh Circuit’s or any of the other U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opinions on pre-filing injunctions. Inherent in this assumption, you would also have to include the notion that Judge Graham who has free access to legal research services, Westlaw, Lexis Nexis, and host of free Internet Services such as Lexisone, Findlaw, and others, does not have access to the law. You would also have to assume, incorrectly, that the S.D. Fla. does not have a law library.
Judge Graham does not know that the right of access to the courts is constitutionally protected.
Judge Graham, a federal Judge since 1992, has not read or is not otherwise familiar with any of the Supreme Court’s many decisions dealing with the right of access to the courts
Judge Graham, a federal Judge since 1992, has not read or is not otherwise familiar with any of the Supreme Court’s many decisions dealing with due process.

The Supreme Court Says that A Judgment Issued in Violation of Due Process is Void

“A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void in the rendering State and is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980). “[T]he constitution, by prohibiting an act, renders it void, if done; otherwise, the prohibition were nugatory. Thus, the warrant is a nullity.” Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 204, 217 (1821). “’No judgment of a court is due process of law, if rendered without jurisdiction in the court, or without notice to the party.” Old Wayne Mut. Life Ass’n v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 15 (1907). “A void judgment is from its inception a legal nullity.” Boch Oldsmobile, at 909 F.2d 657, 661 (1st Cir. 1990). Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927, 941 n. 19 (11th Cir. 1998) (“something that is null has no legal or binding force.”); Carter v. Fenner, at 136 F.3d 1000 (5th Cir. 1998)(“[a] void judgement is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect.”). “Courts are constituted by authority, and they cannot go beyond the power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.” Valley v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 354 (1920).

Right of Access To Courts is Constitutionally Protected

The right of access to the Courts is clear according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977);M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). The Supreme court has stated the right of access to the courts also protected by the First Amendment. BE&K Construction CO. v. National Labor Relations Board et al. 536 U.S. 516 (2001)(“the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government,” and that “[t]he right of access to the courts is … but one aspect of the right of petition.”). California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U. S. 508, 510 (1972)(“The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition.“). See Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004)(recognizing “the fundamental right of access to the courts”); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974)(“The constitutional guarantee of due process of law has as a corollary the requirement that prisoners be afforded access to the courts in order to challenge unlawful convictions and to seek redress for violations of their constitutional rights.“).

Proof No. 1

A judge is legally presumed to know the law. U.S. v. HUMPHREYS (11th Cir. 1992). “Trial judges are presumed to know the law…” WALTON v. ARIZONA, 497 U.S. 639 (1990). The Eleventh Circuit and other courts are quick to assert this fact when a judge does not affirmatively address an aspect of law in a decision or opinion. Given this presumption, there is no reason not to apply it to this situation.

Proof No. 2

The best evidence that Judge Grahams knows that the right of access to the courts is constitutionally protected is Judge Graham’s own writing in the very sua sponte issued prefiling injunction of September 20, 2001. In this order, Teflon Don states:

This screening requirement best balances the interest in constitutionally mandated access to the federal courts with the need to protect the Court’s jurisdiction and integrity.

See pg. 7, Docket No. 878, (D.E. #878).

The U.S. Supreme Court,”SCOTUS”, On the Importance of Due Process

“Courts as well as citizens are not free ‘to ignore all the procedures of the law….’. The ‘constitutional freedom’ of which the Court speaks can be won only if judges honor the Constitution.” Walker v. City Of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 338 (1967)(Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting). “Due process is perhaps the most majestic concept in our whole, constitutional system.” Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 174 (1951) (Justice Frankfurter, concurring). It is ingrained in our national traditions, and is designed to maintain them. In a variety of situations, the Court has enforced this requirement by checking attempts of executives, legislatures, and lower courts to disregard the deep-rooted demands of fair play enshrined in the Constitution.” id. 161. “Fairness of procedure is “due process in the primary sense.” Brinkerhoff-Faris Co. v. Hill, 281 U. S. 673, 281 U. S. 681. In a long line of cases, the United States Supreme Court has held that impingements of constitutional rights are, without variation, subject to the strictures of “due process” or notice and opportunity to be heard prior to their enactments. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950); Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (1951); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972); Owen v. City Of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980); Carey v.Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259 (1978); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976).

Proof No. 3

Judge Graham knows that a constitutionally protected right is subject to due process. RODRIGUEZ v US, 169 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 1999) was a case about due process in which Judge Donald L. Graham presided over at the district court level, Case No. 97-1182-CV-DLG. See Findlaw.com, vlex.com. RODRIGUEZ cites Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976)(“all persons, aliens and citizens alike, are protected by the Due Process Clause“). It is crystal clear that Judge Graham knows of the Supreme Court’s definition and affinity for due process. Even more compelling evidence that Judge Graham knew the law is Judge Graham’s own writings. At pages 6 and 7, of the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction, (DE #878), Judge Graham cites three cases for his nefarious deeds: Copeland v. Green, 949 F.2d 390 (11th Cir. 1991); Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1074 (11th Cir. 1986)(en banc)); Cofield v. Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 936 F.2d 512, 518 (11th Cir. 1991). In Copeland v. Green, 949 F.2d 390 (11th Cir. 1991) the court lays out the procedure followed by the trial court or district court prior to issuing a pre-filing injunction. In Copeland, the court noted: “The district court entered an order requiring Copeland to appear and show cause why he should not be sanctioned for this abuse of his access to the court.” It is quite clear that the litigant in Copeland received notice and opportunity to respond prior to the issuance of the pre-filing injunction. Judge BARD TJOFLAT’s dissent in Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1074 (11th Cir. 1986)(en banc)), “The district court, noting the volume and nature of Procup’s previous litigation, issued an order to show cause why an injunction should not issue prohibiting Procup from filing any further pleadings in the district court.” Lastly, in Cofield v. Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 936 F.2d 512, 518 (11th Cir. 1991) the court noted that “the district court, sua sponte, issued an order to show cause asking why Cofield should not be sanctioned for his overly litigious behavior.” What better evidence of willfulness than Judge Graham’s own writings!

Proof No. 4

Judge Graham presided over Damiano v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 104 F.3d 328 (11th Cir. 1997) in S.D. Fla. Case No. 90-8415 CIV-DLG. See Findlaw.com. This case in no small part addresses itself to due process and the Supreme Court’s landmark case on the sufficiency of due process, Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 317-20 , 70 S.Ct. 652, 658-60, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). This opinion expressly cites Mullane. Consequently, it can not be argued that Judge Graham is not aware of the requirements of due process unless you assume that Judge Graham does not read his own cases.

Proof No. 5

Judge Graham played to what he thought was ignorance on the part of Marcellus Mason. Judge Graham cites a host of different cases to support the idea that he can restrict the filings of a litigant. Judge Graham is very slick and he knew that Mason had acquired the ability to do legal research when he rendered the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction, consequently Judge Graham made a conscious decision not to cite any any of the cases listed below that deal specifically with pre-filing injunctions . The cases cited by Judge Graham do not address pre-filing injunctions specifically. Peck v. Hoff, 660 F.2d 371 (8th Cir. 1981) is concerned with procedures for denying in forma pauperis. Incidentally, Judge Graham has defied the U.S. Supreme Court by defying in forma pauperis motions on some 18 occasions by refusing to offer a legally sufficient reason for these denials. See this site, post “Florida Judge Thumbs His Nose at U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Poor People’s Right to Access The Courts“. In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 n.8 (1989), this citation stands for the proposition of inherent power generally and not the procedures in involved in invoking “inherent power”. Martin Trigona v. Shaw, 986 F.2d 1384, 1387 (11th Cir. 1993) this case deals with the authority to issue a pre-filing injunction, but not with the procedures for imposing an injunction, Cope v. Green, 949 F.2d 390 (11th Cir. 1991), Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1074 (11th Cir. 1986)(en banc)) ,

Proof No. 6

Judge Graham claims that he has inherent power to render a pre-filing injunction. See pgs. 6,7 (D.E. #878). The United States Supreme Court has stated:

“A court must, of course, exercise caution in invoking its inherent power, and it must comply with the mandates of due process, both in determining that the requisite bad faith exists and in assessing fees.” (emphasis added) Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 50 (1991). Are we to believe that a federal judge who relies upon “inherent power” to issue an order is unaware of Supreme Court’s Chambers opinion? At the latest, Judge Graham would have became aware of Chambers would have been on October 16, 2002 when the Eleventh Circuit rendered their opinion and actually cited Chambers. See Appeal From Hell Opinion, pg. 10. As stated above, this appeal is joke and an exercise in artifice and dishonesty. See “Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell“. What has stopped Judge Graham from coming forward and admitting error?

Proof No. 7

Judge Graham has had numerous filings and documents since the institution of the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001 that expressly quotes and cites the United States Supreme Court and others, but yet Teflon Don has been intransigent and has sat on his ass and did nothing. One of these filings was a judicial misconduct complaint, 05-0011 that was submitted January 31, 2005. This complaint specifically mentions Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 50 (1991). On or about February 5, 2005, Judge Graham received a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Eleventh Circuit Case No. 05-10623 that specifically mentions Chambers and a host of other legal authorities setting forth the due process requirements involved in issuing pre-filing injunctions. See pages 8-10, Petition for Writ of Mandamus. On or about February 13, 2004, Judge Graham received a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Eleventh Circuit Case No. 04-11894 that specifically mentions Chambers and a host of other legal authorities setting forth the due process requirements involved in issuing pre-filing injunctions. See pages 11-15, Mandamus Petition. Judge Graham is in possession of a letter that mailed to him on May 3, 2008 that specifically sets forth Supreme Court requirements with respect to due process and the right of access to the courts and as of this date, May 31 2008, Judge Graham has refused to comply with the decisions and orders of the Supreme Court. On September 7, 2002, Judge Graham received a “MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY, PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND TO RESCIND INJUNCTION FORTHWITH, AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PUBLICATION“, (D.E. 914). At pages 10-14, this motion specifically sets forth the legal requirements for issuing a pre-filing injunction and for invoking the “inherent power” of the court according to the United States Supreme Court. On January 31, 2003, Judge Graham rejected the authority of the United States Supreme Court. See (D.E. #928).

Enabling Acts of the Eleventh Circuit

Judge Graham and his enablers at the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal see nothing wrong with Judge Graham disrespecting the United States Supreme Court. In what can only be described as a pure act of artifice and dishonesty, the Eleventh Circuit struck Marcellus M. Mason’s brief in a direct appeal, Case No. 01-13664, for arguing that the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001 was not lawful because they said it was “beyond the scope of appeal”; however, when the Eleventh Circuit decided the appeal it then used the same sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001 to affirm Judge Graham. Equally remarkable is the fact that the Eleventh Circuit was quite unwilling to pass on the validity of this very same sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001. See full story at “Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell“. This a remarkable opinion that mocks the idea of “judicial independence”.

Judge Graham criminalized his own his disrespect and contempt for the United States Supreme Court by making the same sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001 the subject of a criminal contempt complaint. The Eleventh Circuit knew of this concocted criminalization and disdain for the United States Supreme Court by Teflon Don, but yet it sat idly by and did nothing while the clearly void sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001 being used to persecute and oppress Marcellus Mason. The Eleventh Circuit has deployed acts of artifice and dishonesty to avoid reviewing the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001 for validity. See post this site, “Eleventh Circuit Sits Idly By While A Clearly Void Sua Sponte Issued Pre-Filing Injunction Wreaks Havoc On A Man’s Life“.

Case Law On Pre-Filing Injunctions

US CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAVE ROUTINELY REJECTED “SUA SPONTE” PRE-FILING INJUNCTIONS.

A long line of United States appellate courts, including the Eleventh Circuit, have rejected sua sponte issuances of pre-filing injunctions because they are violations of due process. In Weaver v. Leon County Sch. Bd., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8128 (11^th Cir. 2006), the Eleventh Circuit held that a litigant was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before a restriction was imposed on his ability to challenge an injunction. U.S. v. Powerstein, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 14928,*;185 Fed. Appx. 811 (11th Cir. 2006)(litigant entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before the court imposed the injunctive order ). See Sires v. Fair, 107 F.3d 1;1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 2173 (1^st Cir. 1997); Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island , 985 F.2d 32 (C.A.1 (R.I.), 1993) (vacating a pre-fling injunction issued without notice); MLE Realty Assocs. v. Handler, 192 F.3d 259, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 23362 (2^nd Cir. 1999) ; Lau v. Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 121 (2^nd Cir. 2000) ; Holton v. Oral Surg. Sing Sing Corr., 24 Fed. Appx. 37; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 25151 (2^nd Cir. 2001); Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 208 (C.A.2 (N.Y.), 1998) (district court may not impose a filing injunction on a litigant without providing the litigant with notice and an opportunity to be heard.); Gonzales v. Feiner, 131 Fed. Appx. 373, * 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 8370, ** (3^rd Cir. 2005) ; Wiliams v. Cambridge Integrated Servs. Group , 148 Fed Appx. 87, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 18624 (3^rd Cir. 2005) ; Brow v. Farrelly, 994 F.2d 1027 (C.A.3 (Virgin Islands), 1992)(vacating a sua sponte issued injunction); It is imperative that the court afford the litigant notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to issuing such an injunction. In Re Head, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8265,*;174 Fed. Appx. 167 (4^th Cir. 2006)(vacated a 10 yr. old sua sponte injunction); Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 819 (4th Cir. 2004)(vacating a pre-filing injunction issued without notice); Tucker v. Drew, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 11784 (4 ^thCir. 1994) ;DOUGLAS BAUM v. BLUE MOON VENTURES, LLC , 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 91,*;513 F.3d 181;49 Bankr. Ct. Dec. 68 (5th Cir. 2008)(“Notice and a hearing are required if the district court sua sponte imposes a pre-filing injunction or sua sponte modifies an existing injunction to deter vexatious filings.”) ;De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9^th Cir.) ; Roscoe v. Hansen, 107 F.3d 880;1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 4996 (10^th Cir. 1997); Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20966,*;500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007)(litigant must be given notice and a chance to be heard before the [injunctive] order is entered.); Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351,354 (C.A.10 (Wyo.), 1989)(vacated and holding that the litigant is entitled to notice and an opportunity to oppose the court’s order before it is instituted.); Procup v. Strickland, 567 F.Supp. 146 (M.D. Fla., 1983)(court issued a show cause order) Procup v. Strickland, 760 F.2d 1107, 1110 (C.A.11 (Fla.), 1985) (held that district court did give adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before issuance of the injunction); Cofield v. Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm., 936 F.2d 512, 514 (11th Cir.1991)(noting that court issued show cause order prior to rendering pre-fling injunction); In re Powell, 851 F.2d 427, 431 (D.C.Cir.1988)(reversing and holding If a pro se litigant is to be deprived of such a vital constitutional right as access to the courts, he should, at least, be provided with an opportunity to oppose the entry of an order restricting him before it is entered.); Martin v. Circuit Court, 627 So.2d 1298 (Fla.App. 4 Dist., 1993)(reversing a pre-filing order and holding that limiting the constitutional right of access to the courts, essential due process safeguards must first be provided); Lawsuits of Carter, In re, 510 S.E.2d 91, 95; 235 Ga.App. 551 (Ga. App., 1998)(reversing a pre-filing injunction because notice or an opportunity not given); Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277, 1296 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that injunctions “may not be expanded beyond the meaning of its terms absent notice and an opportunity to be heard.”).

Tags:(D.E. #878), 04-11894, 05-0011, 05-10623, 104 F.3d 328 (11th Cir. 1997), 1074 (11th Cir. 1986)(en banc)); Cofield v. Alabama Pub, 1170 (9th Cir. 2001), 140 F.3d 927 941 n. 19 (11th Cir. 1998), 15 (1907), 1651 injunction, 169 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 1999), 174 (1951), 2001, 204 U.S. 8, 259 (1978); Mathews v. Eldridge, 266 F.3d 1155, 313 (1950); Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 333 (1976), 338 (1967), 339 U.S. 306, 341 U.S. 123, 341 U.S. 123 (1951); Goldberg v. Kelly, 388 U.S. 307, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), 404 U. S. 508, 407 U.S. 67 (1972); Owen v. City Of Independence, 416 U.S. 396 (1974), 424 U.S. 319, 426 U.S. 67 (1976), 430 U.S. 817 (1977);M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 435 U.S. 247, 444 U.S. 286 (1980), 445 U.S. 622 (1980); Carey v.Piphus, 510 (1972), 518 (11th Cir. 1991). In Copeland v. Green, 519 U.S. 102 (1996), 541 U.S. 509 (2004), 661 (1st Cir. 1990), 792 F.2d 1069, 936 F.2d 512, 949 F.2d 390 (11th Cir. 1991), 949 F.2d 390 (11th Cir. 1991); Procup v. Strickland, 99-14027, Anderson v. Dunn 19 U.S. 204 (1821), arrogant, artifice, at 136 F.3d 1000 (5th Cir. 1998), at 909 F.2d 657, bad faith, BE&K Construction CO. v. National Labor Relations B, Boch Oldsmobile, Bounds v. Smith, California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, Carter v. Fenner, concocted criminalization, constitutionally protected, contempt, Copeland v. Green, ct, Damiano v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, defying, disdain, dishonesty, disrespe, Donald L. Graham, Due Process, due process of law, Eleventh Circuit, Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hel, enablers, Enabling Acts, Fairness of procedure, filing injunction, finding of bad faith, first amendment, Fuentes v. Shevin, Hart v. Massanari, in forma pauperis, inception, inherent power, Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, leave to file injunction, Lexis Nexis, Lops v. Lops, Mathews v. Diaz, Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., must comply, notice and opportunity's respond, Old Wayne Mut. Life Ass'n v. McDonough, omplete nullity, oppress, persecute, petition for writ of mandamus, pre-filing injunction, Procunier v. Martinez, reckless, right of access to the Courts, right of petition, RODRIGUEZ v US, September 20, Show Cause, snub, specific intent, strictures, sua sponte, Tennessee v. Lane, Thumbing your nose, U.S. Court of Appeal, United States Supreme Court, unlawful convictions, validity, value judgment, vexatious litigant injunction, violation of due process, void, void judgement, voidable, Walker v. City Of Birmingham, Westlaw, Willful, without legal effect, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. V. Woodson
Posted in Constitutional Law, Constitutional Rights, Contempt For Rule of Law, Disdain For Clearly Established Law, Due Process, Eleventh Circuit, first amendment, Judge Donald L. Graham, Judicial Misconduct, nonpublication, Right of Access To The Courts, Unpublished, Void Orders | Leave a Comment »

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

May 17, 2008

Judge Donald L. Graham, “Teflon Don”

Preface

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:

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.

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) .

Tags:"R&R", "SCOTUS", 2005), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(a), 372 U.S. 58, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), 428 F.3d 559, 466 (5th Cir. 1980), 534 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1976), 579 (Fed. 5th Cir., 619 F.2d 459, 70 (1963), 83 F.3d 455 (D.C. Cir. 1996), 92 U.S. 542 (1876), Allen Norton & Blue, Appeal From Hell, Appellate Review, attorney billing records, attorney's fees, Banned Communications, Bantam Books, Bernard v. Gulf-Oil Co., Binding authority, bound, Brian Koji, Case No. 99-14027, Case No. 99-14027-CIV-Graham, Chief Judge Edward Davis, clearly erroneous, colleagues, conduct appellate review, constitutional validity, constitutionally protected, constitutionally protected communication, contrary to law, controlling legal issue, disagrees, dishonesty, Eleventh Circuit, Emp. Opp. Comm. v. The Catholic Univ., evidence, Frank Lynch, Fred Carino, freedom of expression, government defendant, government official, heavy presumption, hell bent, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners, implicit, Inc. v. Singh, Inc. v. Sullivan, inferior courts, invalid prior restraint, irrelevant, James Madison, Jr., Judge Donald L. Graham, judicial, judicial prohibition, judicial treachery, legal authority, legislative branch, Lewis v. S. S. Baune, Maria Sorolis, massive exercise of power, MEMORANDUM OF LAW, merits of the case, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, New York Times Co. v. United States, out of court communications, overruled, personal censorship, personnel file, predetermined judicial prohibition, preliminary injunction, prior restraint, private attorneys, prohibited, protected communications, public records, Report and Recommendation, republic, restraint, reversing, Right to Access The Courts, sanctions, summary judgment motion, supervisory employees, teflon don, Test Masters Educational Services, Thumbs His Nose, U.S. Court of Appeal, unconstitutional limitation, unconstitutional., United States Supreme Court, United States v. Cruikshank, validity
Posted in Constitutional Rights, Contempt For Rule of Law, Disdain For Clearly Established Law, first amendment, Judge Donald L. Graham, Judicial Misconduct, nonpublication, preliminary injunction, Unpublished | Leave a Comment »

Judge Graham Disagrees With The Fifth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals

April 23, 2008

Justice Turned On Its Head

Judge Donald L. Graham, The “Teflon Don”

It is not surprising that Judge Graham, a district judge, would disagree with the Fifth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal because Judge Graham has similarly disagreed with the United States Supreme Court. See Postings this site, Florida Judge Thumbs His Nose at U.S. Supreme Court Rulings on Due Process And Attorneys’ Fees and Florida Judge Thumbs His Nose at U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Poor People’s Right to Access The Courts.

In Test Masters Educational Services, Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559 (Fed. 5th Cir., 2005), the district court “enjoined Singh from “communicating directly with, threatening, or harassing Test Masters Educational Services, Inc., its employees, staff, counsel, counsel’s employees, or counsel’s staff.” Similarly, Judge Graham “enjoined” Mason from communicating with his local government, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners. However, 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 site’s posting “Eleventh Circuit Repeatedly Refuses To Review Orders For Validity“. Yet again, Judge Graham has avoided appellate rebuke while his colleagues have not been 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!

Judge Graham Disagreements With The Fifth Circuit

Judge Graham has multiple disagreements with the Fifth Circuit. Specifically, “Teflon Don”, holds the following disagreements with the Fifth Circuit:

Judge Grahams disagrees that his orders or injunctions but “pre-trial discovery issues”.
Judge Graham has ruled that Federal Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr. may issue an injunction so long as he calls it a “pre-trial discovery issue and not an injunction per se”
Judge Graham can prohibit or enjoin direct communication between a pro se Plaintiff and his local government
Judge Graham is not required to comply with Rule 65, Fed.R.Civ.P.
Judge Graham has the power to dismiss a lawsuit due to lawful out of court communications with the Government

Judge Graham’s Injunction or “Pretrial Discovery Issue and Not An Injunction Per Se”

Judge Graham’s Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr., rendered the following orders on June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000, 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.

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.

Communications Outlawed by Judge Graham

Judge Graham dismissed a lawsuit because out of court communications with a local government. See Report and Recommendation, “R&R”,(DE #766); Order Adopting R&R, (DE #791). Highlands County filed motions for sanctions in the form of dismissal for the following conversations.

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).

Plaintiff sent e-mail communications directly to supervisory employees of the Defendants, which discussed the “no trespass warnings” that were issued against Plaintiff,...

D.E. 646, ¶10, PG.3). Judge Graham was adamant that Mason not talk to the Highlands County Government. As a matter of fact, three months after the case was closed, Judge Graham said:

[I]ncluding 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…On June 20, 2001, in view of Mason’s repeated refusal to comply with the Court’s rules and orders, the Court dismissed case number 99-14027.

See Docket No. 878, pgs. 4-5. God damn it, I told you not to talk to the government!

Acrimony and Vitriol Between the Test Master’s Litigants

The district court’s injunction was prompted by allegations from TES that Singh and his employees had called TES dozens of times a day, including seventy-one times on one day in May 2003. TES alleged that the calls included the screaming of obscenities. TES also claims that Singh’s counsel, Sharon Naim, contacted TES’s president, Roger Israni, and threatened to file suit against TES in other states. TES taped the phone conversation and offered it as evidence that Singh had Naim call Israni directly, which is against the rules of professional conduct for lawyers. TES avers that another person acting on behalf of Singh called the accounting department of TES’s counsel, pretended to be a TES staff member, and obtained billing and insurance information about TES. TES also recorded a conversation with another of Singh’s counsel who called TES offices in August 2003, pretending to be a student in order to gain information about TES. TES contends that it has a recording of that conversation. Finally, TES alleges that Singh sent a letter to TES’s insurer, informing the insurer that it should not cover TES’s costs should TES lose in court. In addition, TES’s counsel and Singh did engage in a verbal and physical altercation in the hallway outside the district courtroom in California after TES’s counsel accused Singh of verbally and physically threatening them. Singh denies threatening TES’s counsel. The district court in California had to order the parties and their counsels to go straight from the courtroom to their cars and threatened them with jail time if another incident occurred.
See Test Masters at 579.

Court’s Legal Analysis

Prior restraints are “administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur.” Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 550, 113 S.Ct. 2766, 125 L.Ed.2d 441 (1993). The district court’s order enjoining Singh from having any future communication with the specified persons was a prior restraint. Any system of prior restraints on communication bears a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70, 83 S.Ct. 631, 9 L.Ed.2d 584 (1963) (quotation marks omitted). Prior restraints are unconstitutional limitations on free speech except in exceptional circumstances. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 716, 51 S.Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931).

Court’s Conclusion

The district court prohibited Singh from “communicating directly with . . . TES employees, staff or TES’s counsel, counsel’s employees, or counsel’s staff.” To quote selectively from the district court, the court found that the parties had demonstrated an “immaturity” and “mean-spirited[ness],” and that Singh was pursuing “vexatious litigation.” However, despite the perhaps need of these parties to never speak again, the court did not detail, and the record does not reflect, any “exceptional circumstances” to justify permanently enjoining Singh from generally communicating with TES, TES’s counsel and their staff and employees. The district court’s order enjoining Singh from communicating with TES employees, TES’s counsel, and its counsel’s employees was a prior restraint limiting Singh’s first amendment rights, and because the injunction order is not supported by exceptional circumstances, it is an unconstitutional restraint on Singh’s free speech rights.Testmaster at 579.

Tags:113 S.Ct. 2766, 125 L.Ed.2d 441 (1993), 2005), 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A), 283 U.S. 697, 372 U.S. 58, 428 F.3d 559 (Fed. 5th Cir., 509 U.S. 544, 51 S.Ct. 625, 550, 70, 716, 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931), 83 S.Ct. 631, 9 L.Ed.2d 584 (1963), administrative orders, Alexander v. United States, Appellate Review clearly erroneous, Bantam Books, coercive order, contrary to law, Defendant Highlands County, Definition of Injunction, direct appeal, discovery order, discovery orders, e-mail, enjoined, exceptional circumstances, Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, Federal Magistrate, Fifth Circuit, first amendment, florida public records, Frank Lynch, Frank Lynch Jr., Fred Carino, heavy presumption, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners, Inc. v. Singh, Inc. v. Sullivan, injunction, injunctive relief, Jr., Judge Donald L. Graham, Judge Vanessa Gilmore, judicial orders, jurisdiction, legal requirements for a preliminary injunction, Magistrate’s Act, Maria Sorolis, Near v. Minnesota, petition clause, petition the government, preliminary discovery motion, pretrial matter, preventive injunction, prior restraint, pro se, prohibited, prohibiting direct communication, prohibitive injunction, pure speech, refuses to review, Report and Recommendation, review, right to petition, sanctions, Sebring, Singh, supervisory employees, Susan H. Black, teflon don, tenth amendment, Test Masters Educational Services, U.S. Court of Appeal, unconstitutional limitations, United States Supreme Court, validity
Posted in Constitutional Law, Constitutional Rights, Judge Donald L. Graham, Junk and Absurd Law, nonpublication, Unpublished | 11 Comments »

Does A Mere Clause In a Sentence Represent Meaningful Appeal?

April 7, 2008

Justice Turned On Its Head

Judge Donald L. Graham

Point of this Post

The Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal cited a mere clause in a sentence in an unpublished opinion and apparently considered this “meaningful appellate review” of Judge Graham’s failure to disqualify. This appeal was captioned under Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13364 and Dist. Ct. Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham/Lynch. This appeal was ultimately concluded with an unpublished opinion that to be kind and civil amounted to nothing more than dishonesty and a reckless disregard for the “rule of law”. See Undermining An Appeal Right to see other ways this appeal was undermined.

It couldn’t be more clear that the Judges at the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal, are not going to let the “rule of law” prohibit them from achieving their desired outcome-a total vindication of Judge Graham’s miscreant behavior. This behavior is fully documented at: http://mmason.freeshell.org/CoreAllegations.htm

A US Circuit Judge On the Potential Dangers of Unpublished Opinions

“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 judges are 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

MOTION FOR REHEARING

The Eleventh Circuit was told of their “mistake” or omission of failing to decide whether Judge Graham should or disqualified or recused himself. Judge Stanley F. Birch, Jr., writing for the panel, rejected Mason’s plea to consider whether Judge Graham should have disqualified or recused himself. On Jan 31, 2003, Judge Birch said: “The petition(s) for rehearing filed by appellant, Marcellus M. Mason, Jr., is DENIED.” See Rehearing Denial Order.

Disqualification on Appeal

See Case Background Information.
On March 11, 2002, Marcellus Mason filed a brief with the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal that stated, among other things, Judge Graham should have disqualified or recused himself. See Appellant’s Brief. This brief excoriates Judge Graham and accuses him of the following:

Usurping authority by allowing a Magistrate to render an injunction.
Usurping authority by prohibiting out of court direct communication with the government
Usurping authority by administering the Florida Public Records Act.
Intentionally lying and misrepresenting the law.
Refusing to rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction that had been pending for more than 19 months.
Mismanagement of the Case by Allowing scores of motions and filings to languish without being decided.

These allegations, and others, are fully documented at http://mmason.freeshell.org/CoreAllegations.htm.

Meaningless Appeal

On October 16, 2002, Judges Stanley F. Birch, Jr., Susan H. Black, and Stanley Marcus asserted:

“Mason also raises issues that relate to non-sanction matters, e.g., .. the denial of his motions to disqualify the district court and magistrate judges…”

See Opinion, page 10. This is the sum total of appellate review as to whether Judge Donald L. Graham should have been disqualified due to misconduct. The “opinion” is 14 pages long. There is absolutely no discussion as to whether the allegations of misconduct are true or not.

Rehearing Motion

Subsequent to the Eleventh Circuit’s failure to decide whether or not Judge Graham should have disqualified or recuse in their “opinion”, Mason filed motion informing the Court of this “oversight” or failure.

This Court’s opinion does not address whether or not the district court abused his discretion by not disqualifying. Plaintiff raised this issue in his Initial Brief at pages 30-33. Mason contends that the district court is in violation of Canon 1, Canon 3, Code Of Conduct For United States Judges Code Of Conduct For United States Judges. Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify was submitted on February 7, 2001, (Doc. 460), which was submitted prior to Defendants’ motions for dismissal in the form of sanctions, the first of which was not submitted until March 2, 2001, (Doc. 511). The district judge should have never taken action on the Defendant’s motion for dismissal that was submitted on March 2, 2001 because he was required to disqualify on Mason’s motion submitted on February 7, 2001.

Pg. 13, Motion For Rehearing.

On Jan 31, 2003, Judge Birch said: “The petition(s) for rehearing filed by appellant, Marcellus M. Mason, Jr., is DENIED.” See Rehearing Denial Order.

Compare Judge Graham To Judge Duross Fitzpatrick

In Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353 (C.A.11 (Ga.), 1997), Judge Duross Fitzpatrick, Middle District of Georgia, the district court was excoriated for mismanagement of a case. This case involved the district court’s failure to resolve discovery disputes and failure to decide motions. “Failure to consider and rule on significant pretrial motions before issuing dispositive orders can be an abuse of discretion.” Chudasama, supra.

Tags:Eleventh Circuit, failure to disqualify, Intentionally lying, Jr., Judge Donald L. Graham, Judges Stanley F. Birch, meaningful appellate review, miscreant behavior, Mismanagement, misrepresenting the law, reckless disregard, recuse, rule of law, Stanley Marcus, Susan H. Black, U.S. Court of Appeal, unpublished opinion, Usurping authority
Posted in Eleventh Circuit, Evading Issues and Outcome, Judge Donald L. Graham, Judicial Misconduct, Junk and Absurd Law, nonpublication, Unpublished | Leave a Comment »

Will the Judges In the Eleventh Circuit Lie to Protect Judge Graham?

March 28, 2008

Will the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal lie to protect Judge Donald L. Graham? The answer is a resounding yes.

Judge Donald L. Graham

Lying About Appellate Review Of Judge Graham’s Disqualification The lie told by the Eleventh Circuit is really quite simple. As set forth below in Case No. 01-13664, the Eleventh Circuit declined to review the issue of whether Judge Graham should have disqualified or not due to alleged misconduct in their decision of October 16, 2002. However, sometime in early 2005, Marcellus Mason subsequently filed a petition for mandamus seeking appellate review as to whether or not Judge Graham should have disqualified due to alleged misconduct. On March 16, 2005, Case No. 05-10623, pg. 2, the Eleventh Circuit promptly lied by explicitly suggesting that they had reviewed this matter. This is dishonesty of the highest magnitude. Case No. 01-13664
In an unpublished opinion, [Case No. 01-13664] the Eleventh Circuit, Judges Stanley F. Birch, Jr., Susan H. Black, and Stanley Marcus have expressly stated that allegations of judicial misconduct are not reviewable on appeal. Theses allegations were not tested for veracity they were simply ignored. Specifically, in the opinion rendered on October 16, 2002, Judges Stanley F. Birch, Jr., Susan H. Black, and Stanley Marcus asserted:

“Mason also raises issues that relate to non-sanction matters, e.g., .. the denial of his motions to disqualify the district court and magistrate judges…”

See Opinion, page 10. This is the sum total of appellate review as to whether Judge Donald L. Graham should have been disqualified due to misconduct. There is absolutely no discussion as to whether the allegations of misconduct are true or not.

Eleventh Circuit Case No. 05-10623

On March 16, 2005, Case No. 05-10623, pg. 2, the Eleventh Circuit and Judge Rosemary Barkett asserted the following:

In this case, Mason is not entitled to the recusal of Judge Graham because final judgment has been entered in his employment discrimination case, and he raised Judge Graham’s denial of his recusal motion on appeal.

This is a classical example of how a half- truth can be a lie because it is misleading. Mason did raise the issue of Judge Graham’s failure to disqualify (Case No. 01-13664), however, as fully set forth and documented above, the Eleventh Circuit refused to review this issue or to test the veracity of the allegations of misconduct and abuse by Judge Graham which Mason had asserted in his brief.

Tags:allegations of misconduct, Appellate Review, dishonesty, Disqualification, Eleventh Circuit, final judgment, Judge Donald L. Graham, Judge Rosemary Barkett, Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr., Judge Stanley Marcus, Judge Susan H. Black, lie, magistrate judge, mandamus, misconduct, motions to disqualify, petition for mandamus, protect, U.S. Court of Appeal
Posted in Appeal, Eleventh Circuit, Evading Issues and Outcome, Judge Donald L. Graham, Judicial Misconduct, Lying, nonpublication, U.S. Court of Appeal, Unpublished | Leave a Comment »

Posts Tagged ‘U.S. Court of Appeal’

Point of This Post

Premise

ISSUE: Whether the Eleventh Circuit Had Jurisdiction of the Appeal?

Eleventh Circuit’s Response to Jurisdictional Challenge

What Do You Know From Reading The Order?

Law On Jurisdiction

Construed or Screwed

Internal Operating Procedure

Motion To Determine Jurisdiction

Case Cited By Eleventh Circuit Supports Appellant

BACKGROUND

Refusal To Cite Legal Authority

Foreword

How Many Times Can a Court Refuse to Review an Order For Validity?

Judicial Independence

The Sua Sponte Issued Pre-Filing Injunction

Case No. 01-13664-A, Direct Appeal

Case No, 01-15754, Mandamus

Rehearing Denied

Case No. 01-16218

Case No. 02-11476-A

Case No. 02-14646, Mandamus

Case No. 04-11894, Mandamus

Case No. 05-10623-I, Mandamus

The U.S. Supreme Court,”SCOTUS”, On the Importance of Due Process

Right of Access To Courts is Constitutionally Protected

Case Law On Pre-Filing Injunctions

US CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAVE ROUTINELY REJECTED “SUA SPONTE” PRE-FILING INJUNCTIONS.

Pre-filing Restrictions

Purpose of this Post

Other Tactics Used by Judge Edmondson

Not Judicial Misconduct

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT DEFINED

Pending Judicial Misconduct Complaints

Preface

The Act That Defies the U.S. Supreme Court

Definition of Willful

Premise of This Post

The Supreme Court Says that A Judgment Issued in Violation of Due Process is Void

Right of Access To Courts is Constitutionally Protected

Proof No. 1

Proof No. 2

The U.S. Supreme Court,”SCOTUS”, On the Importance of Due Process

Proof No. 3

Proof No. 4

Proof No. 5

Proof No. 6

Proof No. 7

Enabling Acts of the Eleventh Circuit

Case Law On Pre-Filing Injunctions

US CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAVE ROUTINELY REJECTED “SUA SPONTE” PRE-FILING INJUNCTIONS.

Preface

Purpose of This Post

“Preliminary Injunctions” Implicating Free Speech

Goddamn It, I Have the Power

Judge Graham’s Hubris

LACK OF APPELLATE REVIEW

U.S. Supreme Court on the Petition Clause

Banned Communications

BACKGROUND

Judge Graham Disagreements With The Fifth Circuit

Judge Graham’s Injunction or “Pretrial Discovery Issue and Not An Injunction Per Se”

Communications Outlawed by Judge Graham

Acrimony and Vitriol Between the Test Master’s Litigants

Court’s Legal Analysis

Court’s Conclusion

Point of this Post

A US Circuit Judge On the Potential Dangers of Unpublished Opinions

MOTION FOR REHEARING

Disqualification on Appeal

Meaningless Appeal

Rehearing Motion

Compare Judge Graham To Judge Duross Fitzpatrick

Statcounter

Pages

Recent Posts