FREE WEB COUNTER
| JUNK LAW PAGE |
HOME
PAGE |
|
Judge Donald Graham, U.S.
District Court, Southern District
The district court case being
referred to here is docketed under Case No.
99-14027-CV-Graham. Maria Sorolis, Allen, Norton & Blue,
served as the attorneys for the Defendant Highlands County and other
Government defendants. Ms. Sorolis has written some really
outstanding garbage briefs that were bought hook, line, and sinker by a
more than willing Judge Graham. See
99-14027-CV-Graham Case
Summary. Mandamus
Petition Does not
Satisfy Notice of Appeal Requirement! The Eleventh Circuit is now claiming that I did not appeal a prefiling screening injunction rendered by Judge Graham, sua sponte, on September 20, 2001, (DE #878). On May 20, 2004 [Eleventh Circuit Case No. No. 04-11894-B], the Eleventh Circuit made the following bold assertion: 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 Page 4, Opinion, Eleventh Circuit Case No. No. 04-11894-B. RECORD FACTS A direct appeal was originally docketed for Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664-A (D.C. Case No. 99-14027-CV) on July 3, 2001. See Appeal Docketing Letter , URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/docketappeal.pdf. Mr. Graham, sua sponte, and without due process notice, wrote an order restricting my filings on September 20, 2001, or three months after the case was noticed for appeal. See DE-878, URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/99-14027/de878.pdf. The appeal briefs were not actually filed until February and March of 2002. Appeal Briefs: First Initial Brief (Stricken), URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/InitialBriefPending.pdf Corrected Initial Brief, URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/CorrectedInitialBrief.PDF, Appellees Answer Brief, URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/AppelleeBrief.pdf, Reply Brief, URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/ReplyBrief.pdf, Appellant's Motion For Rehearing.URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/MotionForRehearing.pdf The Eleventh Circuit struck my brief for arguing the order of September 20, 2001 because they claimed it was "beyond the scope of appeal. " See attached 01-13664_Order_Striking_Appellant_Brief.pdf, URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/01-13664_Order_Striking_Appellant_Brief.pdf . The really appalling and despicable act of dishonesty here is that the Eleventh Circuit turned around and used the same order or injunction of September 20, 2001 that they struck my brief for arguing to justify affirming the dismissal of the case, 99-14027 pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. which was closed on June 20, 2001. 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 district court's implicit finding that a sanction less than dismissal of the action with prejudice would have had no effect. See Opinion_OCR.htm, pg. 14, http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/Opinion-OCR.htm. This same injunction of September 20, 2001 is also referenced on page 9, note 4, Opinion_OCR.htm, URL:http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/Opinion-OCR.htm . On September 29, 2001, even though the case was already on appeal [D.C. Case No. 99-14027-CV], I filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus And Petition For Writ Of Prohibition. See Petition, URL: http://mmason.orgfree.com/15754/WritOfMandamusAndWritOfProhibition.pdf.Moreover, since the briefs had not been filed yet (On September 29, 2001), the Eleventh Circuit could have allowed me consolidate the direct appeal and the mandamus petition, but they refused. LEGAL STANDARD A mandamus petition filed with the court and the opposing party satisfies the requirement for a "notice of appeal". It seems absurd to argue otherwise, which indeed no one has. In STEVENS v. HEARD, 674 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1982), the court concluded that a document which was timely filed with the court, would be sufficient to perfect an appeal if it "clearly evinces an intent to appeal.” See also U.S. v. GRANT, 256 F.3d 1146 (11th Cir. 2001). More importantly, the Eleventh Circuit and the US Supreme Court have held that a timely filed mandamus petition satisfies the notice of appeal requirement. See YATES v. MOBILE COUNTY PERSONNEL BD.,658 F.2d 298,299 (5th Cir. 1981). SMITH v. BARRY, 502 U.S. 244 (1992). Rather than rule on the merits of this petition the Eleventh Circuit simply ignored the petition on December 5, 2001. See URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-15754/P2185803.jpg. Additionally, the Eleventh refused a subsequent motion for rehearing demanding to know the reason for refusing to rule on the merits, however, the Eleventh Circuit, simply ignored the request again. See URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-15754/RehearingDenial.tif
|
| JUNK LAW PAGE |
HOME
PAGE |
