In yet another stunning, outrageous,  and "unpublished decision", Judge Donald L. Graham and the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals rule that an injunction is not an injunction so long as a federal magistrate judge deems the injunction to be a "discovery order" or new device called a "not injunction per se".   Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit and Judge Graham will not discuss the "discovery order" even if it violates the First Amendment, Tenth Amemdment, Florida Constitution, Florida Statutes. 

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

 Ms.  Sorolis has  written some  really garbage legal briefs,  her firm  billed  Highlands  County more than $800,000 against an unrepresented  Plaintiff.   Some of  Ms. Sorolis  legal "briefs" are featured here.  However, credit must be given to Ms. Sorolis because she is smart enough to know that a pro se brief will not be read by any appellate court judge and that the law clerk will decide the case and affirm the district judge, law and facts notwithstanding.  Consequently, Ms. Sorolis will make any specious argument to the district judge because she knows that the Eleventh Circuit will affirm the district judge, assuming a pro se appellant can even perfect an appeal in the first instance.   I have managed to defeat  Ms. Sorolis and the county attorney  in  the  Florida  Appellate  Courts, however ,  I  have had no luck  defeating Ms.  Sorolis  before Judge  Graham and the  Eleventh  Circuit.   See Florida, Second District Court of Appeal Case Nos. 2D00-4002, 2D00-1071, and 2D00-1041.  I also defeated Ms. Sorolis in a unemployment compensation hearing where her clients (Highlands County Board County Commissioners) spent $50,000 to defeat a $3500 claim and still lost. See Florida Appeals Referee Decision.    This was no ordinary defeat for Ms. Sorolis as it was a crushing defeat because the Appeals Referee ruled:  "[B]ased upon the candor and demeanor of the parties and witnesses, it is held that the claimant's testimony is more credible where conflicts occur."

PERTINENT BACKGROUND MATERIAL

Case No. 99-14027
I originally filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida bearing Case No.99-14027-CIV-Graham.  This case was ultimately assigned to Judge Donald L. Graham.  This case has had multiple appeals and petitions for mandamus associated with it. e.g.. Eleventh Circuit Case Nos. , 01-11305, 01-15754-A,  01-13664, 01-11850 ;  This case has more than 900 docket entries on the Pacer System.  See Pacer Docket Sheet.  The Defendant in this case and all other related cases,  the Highlands County Board County Commissioners, is a GOVERNMENT actor.  Highlands County is located in Sebring, Florida which is South Central Florida.  Judge Graham's office is in Miami, Florida, or approximately 160 miles from where I reside in Sebring, Florida.  Maria Sorolis and Brian Koji of Allen, Norton & Blue reside and work in Tampa, Florida, or some 90 miles away from Sebring, Florida.  Court papers are filed in Fort Pierce, Florida, or some 75 miles away from Sebring, Florida.  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),
               page 2 of 2 pages.

        Also, parties to a matter may communicate directly with each other and a lawyer  having independent justification for communicating with the other party to a controversy with a government agency with a government officials abut the  matter. Communications authorized by law include, for example, the right of a party to a controversy with a government agency to speak with government officials about the matter.

See also Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers, Section 99

 

"[T]there is nothing that prohibits one party to a litigation from making direct contact with another party to the
same litigation. See e.g., Missouri Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.2 cmt. (". . . parties to a matter
may communicate directly with each other.). These rules are designed to regulate the conduct of lawyers, and simply do not
apply to the conduct of nonlawyers." E.E.O.C. v. McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP., 948 F. Supp. 54(E.D.Mo. 1996) 

DEFINITION OF AN INJUNCTION AND DEPENDENT WORDS OR PHRASES

Given that I am not an attorney,  only a mere college graduate and presumably too stupid to understand what an injuntion is, I decided to look the term up in a dictionary.  

Injunction:

1.     The act or an instance of enjoining; a command, a directive, or an order.

2.       Law. A court order prohibiting a party from a specific course of action.[1]

Enjoin:

1.    To direct or impose with authority and emphasis. See synonyms at command.

2.                   To prohibit or forbid. See synonyms at forbid.[2]

Webster’s New World, Collegiate Dictionary, 4th Edition, @ 1999 definitions:

enjoin  to join into, put upon; 1. to urge or impose with authority; order; enforce; 2 to prohibit, esp. by legal injunction; forbid [the company was enjoined from using false advertising] 3 to order (someone) authoritatively to do something, esp. by legal injunction.

injunction n.[[LL injunctio < pp. of L injungere, to ENJOIN] 1 an enjoining; bidding; command 2 something enjoined; 3 a writ or order from a court prohibiting a person or group from carrying out a given action, or ordering a given action to be done

Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, @1968

Enjoin

Statements by Maria a Sorolis and Allen, Norton & Blue

See DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IN THE FORM OF DISMISSAL.  

(4) On July 6, 2000, Defendants filed a renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction based upon Plaintiffs blatant violations of this Court’s June 19, 2000 Order. In their motion, Defendants requested that this Court enter an Order prohibiting Plaintiff from directly contacting them for any matter. Id.  
(5) On July 25, 2000, this Court granted Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and ordered Plaintiff to refrain from contacting any of the
Defendants including their supervisory employees and/or the individual Defendants regarding any matter related to this case. This Order provided that
Plaintiff shall correspond only with Defendants’ counsel, including any request  for public records. The Order also prohibited Plaintiff from contacting any of the named Defendants in this case, including their supervisory employees and/or theindividual Defendants, who are parties in other actions (Fellin, St. Germain, etc.) and are represented by counsel in those actions regarding any matter related to those cases. In this Order the Court explicitly held that any future violations of the Order would result in this Court imposing sanctions against the Plaintiff, including a recommendation of dismissal with prejudice as to all claims. (Exhibit 4).

(6) During the week of February 5, 2001, Plaintiff knowingly violated this Court’s Orders of June 19, 2000 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.1 Notwithstanding, his file was produced to him. During this visit, Plaintiff pointed out that certain portions of the contents of his personnel file should be removed. (Exhibit 5). These acts were done with apparent intent to challenge this Court’s authority to issue Orders enjoining Plaintiffs conduct.
(7) 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. Mr. Mason left before the records could be produced.

Statements by Judge Graham and his Magistrate
See if you can make sense of Graham's Magistrate's gobbledygook. 

See (Doc  766, Report and Recommendtion, pg.3, ¶5); (Doc. 791, Order Adopting Report and Recommendtion).

Eleventh Circuit's Statements- JUNK LAW

LEGAL ANALYSIS

These orders are so violative of the law that they do not need discussion, however, I won't reduce my self to Judge Graham and the Eleventh Circuit's level and refuse to discuss legal authority.  I have to play by the rules !

  “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, 474 (5th Cir. 1980)[1] (en banc), aff'd, 452 U.S. 89, 101 S.Ct. 2193, 68 L.Ed.2d 693 (1981).  In fact, Bernard makes abundantly clear that communications authorized by law[2], such as a non-lawyer communicating with his government, are not subject to prior restraints.  “[T]he interest of the judiciary in the proper administration of justice does not authorize any blanket exception to the first amendment.”  Id. at 474. Given that the orders in question are unconstitutional, they are void.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not create federal jurisdiction.  In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, MDL 878 v. Abbott Laboratories, 72 F. 3d 842, 843 (11th Cir. 1995)(citing Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 368-370 & n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2400 & n. 7, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978)).

Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by Acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the State.  And whether the law of the State shall be declared by its Legislature in a statute or by its highest court in a decision is not a matter of federal concern.