UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND NOT NEARLY COMPLETE YET

Related Information:

This document is part of a series in which gross misconduct is documented at http://mmason.orgfree.com, http://donaldlgraham.blogspot.com, and http://geocities.com/mcneilmason.  These websites allege and document gross misconduct which would otherwise be incredulous and beyond belief.  These websites demonstrate that federal judges will lie to protect themselves and each other and conceal their misconduct through the use of unpublished decisions.  Please refer members of the legal community to the websites http://mmason.orgfree.com, http://donaldlgraham.blogspot.com, and http://geocities.com/mcneilmason. 






JUDGE DONALD L. GRAHAM'S LAWSUIT
Judge Donald L. Graham

QUICK SYNOPSIS


I sued Judge Donald L. Graham, his Magistrate, Frank Lynch Jr., and the attorneys for the Highlands County Board of County Commissioners, Maria Sorolis and Brian Koji.  See Complaint.  Originally I filed the lawsuit in the United District Court, Southern District of Florida.  Case No.  01-14224-cv-Middlebrooks/Bandstra.  This case  was assigned to Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks.  I filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on July 30, 2001.  Judge Middlebrooks waited almost six months, January 11, 2002, to deny my IFP motion and dismiss the complaint.  Judge Middlebrooks dismissed the Complaint because:
The Court may dismiss a claim that relies on clearly baseless factual allegations. The Court finds that the
Complaint has no arguable basis in fact. It envisions a fantastic conspiracy between parties to the Heartland action and the judges presiding over that action and clearly reflects a mere disagreement with the judicial orders against Plaintiff in the Heartland action.




Judge Middlebrooks took almost six months to rule on the IFP motion despite the fact that he was told by the clerk, Catherine Wade, on November 20, 2001 that the IFP motion had been pending for more than 90 days, Local Rule 7.1(B)(3) .  See Notice of 90 Days Expiring And Ripeness For Hearing.  


After Judge Middlebrook's slick and untimely maneuver, I then modifed a state court action (Fla. 10th Jud. Cir. GC-01-587) I had pending and added Judge Donald L. Graham, his Magistrate, Frank Lynch Jr., and the attorneys for the Highlands County Board of County Commissioners, Maria Sorolis and Brian Koji to the state court lawsuit.  The lawsuit was quickly removed to federal court by Graham's attorney, AUSA Jeffrey R. Levenson.  This case was subsequently docketed Case No. 02-14049-CV-Moore where it was supposedly randomly assigned to Judge K. Michael Moore.  


Pertinent Briefs:
Case No.
 Court
 Name of Brief
 Author
 doc. No
02-14049
 FLSD
 Complaint
 Marcellus Mason
 1
02-14049  FLSD Motion To Dismiss

02-14049 FLSD Report and Recommendation Magistrate John O'Sullivan
02-14049
FLSD Court Order Closing Case Judge K. Michael Moore 56
02-14049 FLSD Order Refusing to Publish or Clarify Judge K. Michael Moore * 63





02-13418 11th Cir. Appellant's Brief  (MS-Word)(html) (pdf) Marcellus Mason
02-13418 11th Cir. Graham's Answer Brief AUSA Kathleen Salyer
02-13418 11th Cir. Sorolis Answer Brief Maria Sorolis
02-13418 11th Cir. Opinion Judges Carnes, Wilson, and Kravitch
02-13418 11th Cir. Appellant's Motion For Publication Marcellus Mason






















* Judge K. Michael Moore's integrity and character is suspect to say the least.  See  US_v_CERCEDA


The basis of my lawsuit against Judge Graham,Case No. 02-14049-CV-Moore,  is the following patently illegal orders which were issued in a prior lawsuit, 99-14027-CV-Graham, which Judge Graham presided over.  On June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000, the Magistrate Judge, Lynch, issued the following directives:

               “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),
               page 2 of 2 pages.

               “Plaintiff shall correspond only with Defendants' counsel including
               any requests for public records.” (DE #246), page 2 of 2 pages.
              
            “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),
         page 2 of 2 pages.







My initial lawsuit, 99-14027-CV-Graham, was dismissed because it was alleged that I violated the above orders by communicating with the Government.  In the matter at bar, Case No. 02-14049-CV-Moore, I argue that these "orders" violate my right under the first amendment.  Moreover, these orders also violate the tenth amendment.   It is beyond cavil that judges have absolute immunity, however, Judges are not absolutely immune.  If you read the orders of Judge Moore and the Eleventh Circuit you will not see these orders discussed at all.  There is no discussion as to whether these orders are "in excess of jurisdiction" or in "clear violation" of all jurisdiction.


Judge Graham exhibited extreme hubris and has even bragged about telling me not to speak to the GOVERNMENT directly.  e.g. ""including continual attempts to directly communicate with the Defendants rather their attorneys,the Court enjoined Mason from any further contact with Defendants or Defendants' employees. Mason, however, ignored the Court's order and continued to contact the Defendants..."  See pg. 4, DE-878.  "

EXTREME HUBRIS AND ARROGANCE
Judge Graham has repeatedly and adamantly refused to cite legal authority for these patently illegal orders.  This is a fact based website.  I repeatedly and incessantly challenged the jurisdiction of the court with  respect to these illegal orders, (DE #201), page 2,  (DE #246), page 2  ,  however, Judge Graham absolutely refused to state where he got the legal authority to issue the orders in question.  See for example, and note that this list is not collectively exhausted, Case No. 99-14027 see Plaintiff’s  motions and responses, (Doc. #200);(Doc. #239); (Doc. #262);(Doc.  #264);(Doc. #284);(Doc. #334);(Doc. #509);(Doc. #515);(Doc. #526);(Doc. 554);(Doc. 632, pg. 5);(Doc.#633);(Doc. 652);(Doc. 663); (Doc. 735); (Doc. 736); (Doc. 738); (Doc. 783); (Doc. 787, pgs 2-3); (Doc. 810); (Doc. 812); (Doc. 813); (Doc. 817); (Doc. 829), (Doc. 845);and the court's orders: (DE #201), page 2,(DE #246), page 2,;(Doc. #279);(Doc. 281);(Doc. #407, pg. 2  );(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), and relevant Defendants’ responses and motions, (Doc. 199); (Doc. 199);(Doc.  231);(Doc. 274);(Doc. 275); (Doc. 348);(Doc. 511);(Doc. 559);(Doc.  639);(Doc. 646);(Doc.690); (Doc. 823);(Doc. 834); (Doc. 838);(Doc. 841); (Doc. 859).  

Again on January 25, 2002, Judge Graham was asked the following:

By what legal authority does the Magistrate act in issuing the orders in question, (DE #201, 246), directing that a nonlawyer must seek the permission of a private for profit lawfirm in order to communicate with his government directly and request public records ?
See Exhibit 1, (DE 890). 


Judge Graham's Answer and Controlling Legal Authority

The Court shall accept this Motion as a filing.  However, this motion will not be denied.  Plaintiff has, on numerous occasions, filed motions for clarification in this case, all of which have been denied. The Court finds the sent motion, like the motions before it, is without merit.  
See Page 1, (DE 890).


It is quite clear that Judge Graham, or no judge has any business or need to tell me that I can not talk to my government out of the presence of the court.  To put these matters in geographical perspective, I live in Sebring, Florida.  Graham's office is in Miami, FL or 160 miles away from Sebring, Florida.  The government, Highlands County, is in Sebring, Florida.  The private attorneys, Maria Sorolis, Allen, Norton & Blue is in Tampa, Florida or about 85 miles from Sebring, Florida where I reside.  







Trickery and Chicanery used by the Eleventh Circuit.