Secretlaw.com

JUNK LAW  PAGE
"Unpublished Opinions" that violate clearly established law and are offensive to the "rule of law"
 		HOME PAGE
Secretlaw.com Home page, a comprehensive look at the misconduct of Judge Graham and how the Eleventh Circuit conspires to conceal this misconduct.
TRICKERY PAGE
Tricks Used by the Eleventh Circuit to Undermine Appeal Rights
 JUDGE EDMONDSON MAKES MOCKERY OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS
JUDGE GRAHAM'S LAWSUIT
Judge Graham was sued, however the Eleventh Circuit grants him immunity without discussing the legality of what Judge Graham did. 
ABUSE OF INHERENT AUTHORITY BY JUDGE DONALD L. GRAHAM
Judge Graham's Blog
A quick summary of Judge Donald L. Graham's Lawless and Arrogant Behavior
 Refusal to Discuss Appellate Issues
Describes how the Eleventh Circuit evades  issues on appeal in order to get the desired outcome.  The Eleventh Circuit is quite adept at this tactic. 




"WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO REVIEW WHETHER JUDGE GRAHAM SHOULD HAVE DISQUALIFIED; AND WE MAY GO BEYOND THE SCOPE OF APPEAL TO AFFIRM JUDGE GRAHAM"
In a Landmark and "Unpublished Opinion", Judge Stanley Birch, Judge Susan Black, and Judge Stanley Marcus, Eleventh Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, have ruled that they are not required to rule on a jurisdictional issue like whether or not Judge Graham failed to disqualify.  Additionally, Judge Stanley Birch, Judge Susan Black, and Judge Stanley Marcus have given themselves permission to exceed the scope of appeal.  By  taking these actions, Judge Stanley Birch, Judge Susan Black, and Judge Stanley Marcus have necessarily approved of judicial misconduct by fellow federal  judge, Donald L. Graham. 

Judge Donald Graham, U.S. District Court, Southern District
Judge Donald L. Graham                                                         Maria Sorolis, esq. extraordinare  Maria Sorolis

PERTINENT BACKGROUND




Case No. 99-14027
Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664-A

Marcelllus Mason originally filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida bearing Case No.99-14027-CIV-Graham.  Maria Sorolis, Allen, Norton & Blue, was attorney for the Highlands County Board of County Commissioners. This case was ultimately assigned to Judge Donald L. Graham.  This lawsuit alleges discrimination, among other things, under Title VII, the ADA, and violations of  §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 against the  Highlands County Board County Commissioners and other government  defendants and/or their agents.  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), "government speaking injunction".





               page 2 of 2 pages.

               “Plaintiff shall correspond only with Defendants' counsel including
               any requests for public records.” (DE #246), "government speaking injunction", 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, "government speaking injunction"..

Judge Graham ultimately dismissed this case, not on the merits, but because Marcellus Mason dared to communicate with his government, the Highlands County Board of County Commissioners, directly.


Related Case Information

After the Eleventh Circuit refused to address whether Judge Graham should have recused himself due to allegations of misconduct on direct appeal; and further that the Eleventh Circuit went "beyond the scope of appeal" to affirm Judge Graham, Mason later filed a petition for mandamus to get these matters addressed.

Case No. 04-11894-B Petition For Mandamus
Case No. 04-11894-B Order Denying Mandamus

These documents are offered to  demonstrate that the Eleventh Circuit is determined to conceal Judge
Graham's misconduct.   

 
LINKED AND REFERENCED DOCUMENTS

de201.pdf,  "government speaking injunction".  This document prohibits Marcellus Mason from speaking with his government directly, and requires him to seek the permission of a private for profit law firm, Allen, Norton & Blue in order to communicate with his government.  This injunction was rendered by Judge Graham's Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr.  It fails to state where Judge Graham or his Magistrate get the legal authority to issue these injunctions.  It fails to state why this order does not violate the first amendment and other legal impediments. 


de246.pdf, "government speaking injunction".   This document prohibits Marcellus Mason from making public records request, under Florida Law, with his government directly, but requires that he  request the permission of a private for profit law firm, Allen, Norton & Blue.  This injunction was rendered by Judge Graham's Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr.  It fails to state where Judge Graham or his Magistrate get the legal authority to issue this injunctions.  It fails to state why this order does not violate the first amendment, tenth amendment, and other obvious legal impediments. 

InitialBriefPending.pdf.   This is the first appeal brief filed Mason.  It was stricken, in part, because Mason argued against the "filing injunction", "de878.pdf",  Pages 31-33 of this brief argues against the "filing injunction"/ 


CorrectedInitialBrief.pdf is the second Initial Brief filed by the Plaintiff Marcellus Mason.  This is the second brief that Mason had filed as the Eleventh Circuit struck the first brief filed by Mason.  There is no reference to the "filing injunction", "de878.pdf", as the Eleventh Circuit demanded any such referenced be excluded because it is" beyond the scope of appeal".    This document is also available online at :   
 
Opinion-OCR.doc [This is an editable OCR copy] is the decision by the Eleventh Circuit.   It is an unsigned and unpublished opinion.   There is no discussion of the allegations of misconduct raised by Mason in his brief.  The Eleventh Circuit simply ignored the allegations.  This document [photocopy] is also available online at: 
http://mmason.orgfree.com/EleventhCircuitOrders/01-13664_Decision.pdf


de878.pdf is a "filing injunction" rendered by Judge Donald L. Graham after he got tired of  Marcellus Mason making inquiries about his legal authority to render the "government speaking injunctions" referenced above.  This injunction prohibits Mason from making ANY PLEADING with respect to the Highlands County Board of County Commissioners.  This injunction was rendered on September 20, 2001, or three months after the case was noticed for appeal on June 25, 2001. 


Important dates:

District Court and Judge Graham Case No. 99-14027-CV

June 20, 2001.  Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham was dismissed by Judge Graham on because of alleged violations of the above "government speaking injunctions".

 <>June 23, 2001.  A Notice of Appeal was mailed to the Court.

June 25, 2001.  The case was docketed for appeal by the clerk with Docket Entry 795.   July 3, 2001.  Case docketed for appeal by the Eleventh Circuit.  See http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/docketappeal.pdf . 

June 25, 2001. The district court dockets a request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis with Docket Entry 796. 
July 12, 2001 Docket Entry 799, Mason files a motion for a ruling on his pending in forma pauperis motion. 
August 8, 2001  Docket Entry 811, Mason files a second motion for a ruling on his pending in forma pauperis motion.
September 18, 2001  Docket Entry 877, Judge Graham's Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr. denies the pending in forma pauperis request stating only:

 

and noting that in other actions filed by Plaintiff, Judge Graham has denied Plaintiff' s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Case Nos . 00-14116, 00-14201 ,00-14202, 00-14240), and further noting that this Court has compared Plaintiff's previously filed IFP motions and accompanying affidavits with the instant motion and affidavit and has found no relevant difference,  See online at:

http://mmason.orgfree.com/DE-877/de877.pdf

 

September 20, 2001.  Judge Graham rendered the above "filing injunction", de878.pdf .  This order followed a barage of requests from the Plaintiff inquiring of Judge Graham's and the Magistrate's authority to issue the above named "government speaking injunctions.  Judge Graham issues this order while an appeal had been pending since June 25, 2001.  As noted on the order, Judge Graham enters this order sua sponte and gives Mason no warning or opportunity to respond prior to the issuance or subsequent to its issuance.  Judge Graham claims he is using his "inherent authority".


Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664-AA

July 3, 2001.  Case docketed for appeal by the Eleventh Circuit.  See http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/docketappeal.pdf .

 

December 12, 2001. The Eleventh Circuit denies a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis Without offering so much as a scintilla of proof, the Eleventh Circuit simply says "appellant is untruthful".

See online at:  http://mmason.orgfree.com/EleventhCircuitOrders/01-13664IFPdenial.jpg .

 

February 7, 2002.  The Eleventh Circuit denies motion for clarification and reconsideration of IFP denial on December 12, 2001 that simply asked what proof that the Eleventh Circuit had that Mason had not been truthful on his IFP application.

See online at:

http://mmason.orgfree.com/EleventhCircuitOrders/01-13664ClarifyDenyIFP.jpg

 

March 6, 2002.  The Eleventh Circuit strikes Brief for arguing against the 'filing injunction".   See Order dated March 6, 2002, pg. 2.  This order clearly states:

 

To the extent that the Appellees seek to strike Appellant's brief ..., and due to Appellant's arguments regarding an order not within the scope of this appeal, contained as pages 31-33 of Appellant's brief, this motion is GRANTED IN PART .

 http://mmason.orgfree.com/01-13664/OrderGrantingMotionToStrike.pdf

 

April 23, 2002  The Eleventh Circuit grants Plaintiff's/Appellant's motion to strike the Defendant/Appellees' brief for arguing "filing injunction" or order of September 20, 2001in their brief.  The Eleventh Circuit grants this motion to strike, but refuses to make the  Defendant/Appellees' file new briefs.  The Eleventh Circuit stated:

 

Appellant's motion to strike Appellees' brief is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that Appellees cite to the District Court's September 20, 2001, Omnibus Order, as that order is outside the scope of this appeal. This Court will disregard any references in Appellees' brief to matters outside the scope of this appeal.

 See online at:  http://mmason.orgfree.com/EleventhCircuitOrders/01-13664GrantAppellantStrikeMotion.jpg 


 

October 16, 2002  Eleventh Circuit affirms district court Judge Graham and refuses to address the issue of jurisdiction with respect to whether Judge Graham should have disqualified or not.  The Eleventh Circuit also uses the "filing injunction", "de878.pdf ", to affirm Judge Graham even though they had STRICKEN Mason's brief for arguing this matter.  See "Opinion"(This is an OCR version with a small file size).  Actual Photographic version PDF is available, 1.32MB. 

 

 


ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED BY THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ON APPEAL

Marcellus Mason argued that Judge Graham should have been disqualified because of misconduct that is fully documented below.  The Eleventh Circuit simply ignored this issue and stated only the following in their 14 page "opinion":

Mason also raises issues that relate to non-sanction matters, e.g., the dismissal of individual defendants from the second consolidated amended complaint, the dismissal of claims from his fourth consolidated amended complaint, the denial of his motions to disqualify the district court and magistrate judges, and the merits of his complaint.

 See Opinion Page 10.

The Eleventh Circuit refuses to test the veracity of serious allegations of msconduct  raised against Judge Graham, nor do they state why Judge Graham should have or should not have disqualified, it simply ignores the issue apparently because the Eleventh Circuit doesn't like the implications or required legal outcome. 

  Mason 's  brief specifically states the following:

Appellant's Initital Brief and Issues Raised (See Pages 2, 4-9, 28-32
 
I. Did the District Judge improperly dismiss this case based upon a blatantly aggressive act of usurpation committed by the Magistrate Judge who acted in clear violation of all jurisdiction in issuing a “pretrial discovery issue and not an injunction per se ” which directed that Mason, a nonlawyer, must seek the permission of a private for profit lawfirm in order to communicate with his government and request records under Florida Law? The Magistrate Judge
circumvented the will of the United States Congress as codified at 28 U.S.C. § 636 by cloaking an injunction inside of a device not described anywhere in the legal literature called a “pretrial discovery issue and not an injunction per se.” The Magistrate Judge granted a request for an injunction that violated the Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights and violated the Plaintiff’s rights under the Florida Constitution and the Florida Statutes. Plaintiff’s lawsuit was ultimately dismissed because of these aggressive actions of usurpation committed by
the Magistrate Judge.
 
 
VIII. Did the District Judge properly manage this case? The District Judge did not properly manage this case as the District Judge allowed scores of pretrial motions to languish without any action. The district court usurped legal authority.
 
 
X.  Did the District Court err by not disqualifying itself on Plaintiff’s motion to recuse thereby rendering all orders of the District Court null and void? The Judges in this matter deliberately lied to the Plaintiff and misapplied the law. The District Judge failed to conduct proper “de novo” reviews as required by law. The district court allowed scores of motions and appeals to merely languish in the court without a ruling.
 
Pages 28-33,Appellant's Initital Brief, specifically argues that Judge Graham should have disqualified himself because of the following misconduct:
 


Judge Graham's Illegal, Immoral, Unethical, Aggressive, and Outrageous Behavior.

  • Allowing a motion for a preliminary injunction for to languish in court for 574 days and not make a ruling. The motion for preliminary in injunction was initially filed on November 24, 1999. See (DE #39). See PacerReportsDocketEntries99-14027.html. Essentially, Graham gave himself permission not to rule on a motion for injunctive relief. Despite repeated requests, Graham refused to disclose why he wouldn't rule on the motion for a preliminary injunction. As a side matter, when Mason filed petition for mandamus (Case No. 01-11305) with the Eleventh Circuit, the Eleventh Circuit simply stated: "His mandamus petition, however, is frivolous because he has failed to establish that he is entitled to mandamus relief to compel the district court to rule on his motion for preliminary injunction."  See Order Dated April 26, 2001, page1, page 2. As a matter of fact as recently as May 20, 2004, Case No. 04-11894, Judges Carnes and Hull, were willing to intentionally misstate the facts in order to cover for Judge Graham. Proof? "Mason merely asserts that Judge Graham was not impartial because (1) he allowed many of Mason's motions to languish...As to the alleged languishing, a review of the district court docket sheet shows that the court ruled upon his motions in a timely manner ." See pgs. 2, 3 Case No. 04-11894 Opinion. How is NEVER ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction ruling "upon his motions in a timely manner"? This answer is false, dishonest, absurd and insulting. Review the docket and see where Graham ruled on the motion for preliminary injunction, (DE #39). See PacerReportsDocketEntries99-14027.html.
  • Usurped legal authority in violation of the First and Tenth Amendment. Judge Graham issued orders stating that I must request the permission of private for profit attorneys in order to speak to the government or request Public Records under Florida law. Judge Graham actually dismissed a lawsuit because he said I talked to the government without the permission of a private for profit lawfirm. See Court Orders, (Doc. #201), (Doc. 246) .
  •  Allowing scores of motions to languish in court for up to 8 months and not taking any action. See Languishing Motions and Section 372(c) Complaint, See Eleventh Circuit Special Docket No.: 01-0054, HTML Format. As recently as May 20, 2004, Case No. 04-11894, Judges Carnes and Hull, were willing to intentionally lie or misstate the facts in order to cover for Judge Graham. Proof? "Mason merely asserts that Judge Graham was not impartial because (1) he allowed many of Mason's motions to languish...As to the alleged languishing, a review of the district court docket sheet shows that the court ruled upon his motions in a timely manner ." See pgs. 2, 3 Case No. 04-11894 Opinion. How is NEVER ruling on scores of motions and filings ruling "upon his motions in a timely manner"? This answer is false, dishonest, absurd, and insulting. Review the docket and see where Graham never ruled on the motions and filings listed above.  See PacerReportsDocketEntries99-14027.html.
  • Lying and intentionally misrepresenting the law. A judge’s honesty and integrity lie at the very heart of that system. See In re Shenberg, 632 So. 2d 42, 47 (Fla. 1992). Donald L. Graham did this by telling Marcellus Mason one version of the law and another version of the same law to a different Plaintiff that was represented by competent counsel. Graham stated in Mason’s lawsuit that he could not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against a state actor, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners, while at the very same time he allowed a Plaintiff to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against the very same state actor, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners. In Mason’s lawsuit, Case No. 99-14027-CIV-Graham, Graham's Court stated:

"Counts Eight, Nineteen, Twenty-One, Twenty-Three and Twenty-Five deal with §1981 claims. This Court believes that those claims should likewise be dismissed pursuant to the Eleventh Circuit's opinion in Butts v. County of Volusia, 222 F.3d 891(11th Cir. 2000). In Butts, the Eleventh Circuit held that §1983 constituted the exclusive remedy against state actors for violation of rights contained in §1981. The Plaintiff has a valid §1983 count pending concerning his termination of employment. He has two Title VII claims as well as a disparate treatment claim pending. The Plaintiffs response does not give sufficient reason why he is entitled to plead a §1981 claim in light of the Buffs decision.  Therefore, this Court is going to recommend to the District Court that Counts Eight, Nineteen, Twenty-One, Twenty-Three and Twenty-Five be dismissed with prejudice.    See Page 3, Report and Recommendation, (DE #435), Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, Page 6, Page 7, Page 8, and Page 9.  Graham signed this Report and Recommendation.  See Order (DE #466), page 2.  At the very same time, Graham was saying that I could not state a claim against a state actor under §1981, he was allowing the Plaintiff to state a claim under §1981 against the very same state actor, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners, in Case No. 00-14094-CIV-Graham, Fa Nina St. Germain v. Highlands County Board of County Commissioners.   Fa Nina St. Germain's §1981 was disposed of on the facts, not the law and not Butts v.  County of Volusia, 222 F.3d 891(11th  Cir. 2000), in Case No.   00-14094-CIV-Graham.  See Pages 2, Order on Summary Judgment, pages Case No. 00-14094, (PDF)    (Doc. 58, JPG), pps: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 27.  Clearly, Judge Graham either lied to me or Fa Nina St. Germain as he could not have told the truth to the both of us.