The Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal Abuses Unpublised Opinions

*************************************************************************************************************

NEW POSTING: See Two Real Live Examples of the Eleventh Circuit uses "unpublished opinions to undermine the rule of law:

Martinez, v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305 (11^th Cir. 2004) and the Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded Judge Hurley's denial of an IFP application. You might be curious to know that Judge Donald L. Graham in the same Court, Southern District of Florida did the exact thing as Judge Hurley, but Judge Graham was affirmed. Take five minutes and read mmason.orgfree.com/martinez.htm .

Similarly in World Thrust Films v. International Family Entertainment, 41 F. 3d 1454 (11th Cir. 1995), U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, was reversed on appeal for failing to make an explicit finding under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), while U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham, S.D. Fla., failed to make the same explicit finding, but was affirmed on appeal. See mmason.orgfree.com/WorldThrust.htm .
*********************************************************************************************************************

For an example of how "unpublished opinions" are used to undermine the law. See http://mmason.orgfree.com/01-13664/OrderAffirmingTrialCourt/Opinion-OCR.htm . You must read this opinion and pass it on because this is the most outrageous example of "unpublished opinion" that you can find.

INTRODUCTION
The Eleventh Circuit has made of slew of decisions with respect to Marcellus M. Mason, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners, and Judge Donald L. Graham, however, despite the myriad of decisions made by the Eleventh Circuit, they have not found one single decision that they could publish involving these parties. The question is why not. I contend that the Eleventh Circuit is attempting to conceal the misconduct of Judge Donald L. Graham. Indeed you won't see them mention any allegations of misconduct against Judge Graham

ROLL CALL OF UNPUBLISHED DECISIONS
01-13664
01-11305
02-13418     This is a lawsuit where Judge Graham was being sued. You would think it would be     important enough to publish.
01-15754 This is one page denial of a mandamus petition with no explanation at all.
04-11894   This is mandamus denial which does not even discuss the allegations of misconduct directed against Judge Graham.
00-16512   This appeal dealt with Judge Graham's arbitrary denial of IFP. See Judge Graham's IFP history.

11th Cir. R. 36-2 Unpublished Opinions. An opinion shall be unpublished unless a majority of the
panel decides to publish it. Unpublished opinions are not considered binding precedent. They may
be cited as persuasive authority, provided that a copy of the unpublished opinion is attached to or
incorporated within the brief, petition, motion or response in which such citation is made. But see
I.O.P. 7, Citation to Unpublished Opinions by the Court, following this rule.

11th Cir. R. 36-3 Publishing Unpublished Opinions. At any time before the mandate has issued, the
panel, on its own motion or upon the motion of a party, may by unanimous vote order a previously
unpublished opinion to be published. The timely filing of a motion to publish shall stay issuance of
the mandate until disposition thereof unless otherwise ordered by the court. The time for issuance
of the mandate and for filing a petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc shall begin
running anew from the date of any order directing publication.

IOP Internal Operating Procedure
5. Publication of Opinions. The policy of the court is: The unlimited proliferation of published
opinions is undesirable because it tends to impair the development of the cohesive body of law. To
meet this serious problem it is declared to be the basic policy of this court to exercise imaginative
and innovative resourcefulness in fashioning new methods to increase judicial efficiency and reduce
the volume of published opinions. Judges of this court will exercise appropriate discipline to reduce
the length of opinions by the use of those techniques which result in brevity without sacrifice of
quality.

6. Unpublished Opinions. A majority of the panel determine whether an opinion should be
published. Opinions that the panel believes to have no precedential value are not published. All
non-published opinions and affirmances without opinion under 11th Cir. R. 36-1 are printed in table
form in the Federal Appendix. (See for example 88 Fed.Appx. 384). Although unpublished opinions
may be cited as persuasive authority, they are not considered binding precedent. Reliance on
unpublished opinions is not favored by the court. The court will not give the unpublished opinion
of another circuit more weight than the decision is to be given in that circuit under its own rules.
Parties may request publication of an unpublished opinion by filing a motion to that effect in
compliance with FRAP 27 and the corresponding circuit rules.

7. Citation to Unpublished Opinions by the Court. The court generally does not cite to its
“unpublished” opinions because they are not binding precedent. The court may cite to them where
they are specifically relevant to determine whether the predicates for res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or double jeopardy exist in the case, to ascertain the law of the case, or to establish the
procedural history or facts of the case.

Not only are these "opinions not published, you can't even go the Eleventh Circuit's, www.ca11.uscourts.gov,web page and find them by doing a search. These opinions are on the scrap heap of justice. If you don't know these cases exist you can not possibly find them.

BANNED OUT OF COUFT DIRECT GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS

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)

FUTILE ATTEMPTS AT APPELLATE REVIEW

1. The following orders, [D.C. Case No. 99-14027-CV- Graham, ( Doc. 201), ( Doc. 246)] rendered by a Magistrate, are not valid and are violative of the First Amendment, Tenth Amendment, 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A), and fails to meet the legal requirements for a preliminary injunction :

“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

“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 Eleventh Circuit, US Court of Appeal has had a multiplicity of opportunities to review these orders, but has declined to do so. These orders were reviewable under collateral order doctrine and could have been appealed prior to entry of final judgment because these orders resolved issues independent and easily separable from other claims in the prior pending lawsuit. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Sona Distributors, 847 F.2d 1512, 1515 (11^th Cir. 1988). Following is a list[1] of opportunities The Eleventh Circuit has to review these orders:

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

b. Case No. 01-15754. Among other things, The Eleventh Circuit again refuses to address this issue. In fact, the entirety of the opinion is: “The "petition for writ of mandamus and petition for writ of prohibition" is DENIED.”

c. Case No. 02-13418. This lawsuit was filed against Judge Graham and his Magistrate, Judge Frank Lynch, Jr., for issuing these orders. In an opinion rendered on Dec. 6, 2002, The Eleventh Circuit again declined to discuss the validity of these orders while asserting in a mere conclusory fashion that the Judges have absolute immunity. In reading the opinion, one can not determine what the judges are immune from.

d. Case No. 01-13664. Mason filed a Appellant’s Renewed Motion For Summary Reversal on or about September 25, 2002. Yet again The Eleventh Circuit refuses to discuss the validity of these orders.

e. Case No. 01-11305. On April 26, 2001, The Eleventh Circuit yet again refused to review the validity of theses orders. “With regard to his requests for relief from the order granting the defendants’ motions for preliminary injunction, which the court construed as preliminary discovery motion, Mason has alternative remedy. He may either comply with the district’s courts discovery order and challenge it on appeal from the final judgment, or refuse to comply with the order and challenge its validity if cited for contempt”. See Mandamus Petition. Was Mason supposed to wait until the end of trial to get his First Amendment rights back? The Eleventh Circuit has answered this question with a resounding no. “[I]t is well established that "[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” KH Outdoor, LLC v. Trussville, 458 F.3d 1261, 1271-1272 (11th. Cir. 2006); Cate v. Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176, 1188 (11th Cir. 1983). The Eleventh Circuit declined to review these orders via interlocutory appeal because they were characterized as “discovery orders” by the district court”. However, it is well established that an appellate court is not bound by a district court’s characterization of its own orders with respect to appellate jurisdiction. United States v. Hylton, 710 F.2d 1106 (5th Cir. 1983); United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470 (1971).

[1] This list is not collectively exhaustive.

***********************************************************************************************************

**********************************************************************************************************

JUDGE DONALD L. GRAHAM AND THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, USCA USE UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS TO UNDERMINE THE RULE OF LAW AND HIDE MISCONDUCT

NEW POSTING: See Two Real Live Examples of the Eleventh Circuit uses "unpublished opinions to undermine the rule of law:

For an example of how "unpublished opinions" are used to undermine the law. See http://mmason.orgfree.com/01-13664/OrderAffirmingTrialCourt/Opinion-OCR.htm . You must read this opinion and pass it on because this is the most outrageous example of "unpublished opinion" that you can find.