AUSA Robert Waters Uses Power of US Government To Suppress Criticism of U.S. Dist. Judge Graham
HOME | DOCUMENTED ACTS OF MISCONDUCT|JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGE GRAHAM |JUDGE GRAHAM OVERRULES THE FIRST AMENDMENT | In Forma Pauperis Mockery| METHODS USED TO UNDERMINE JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE
 |
 |
If Judge Graham and his enablers were in compliance with the law, then why all the effort to stop the publication and criticism of their work?
On March 15, 2004, a bench trial held in the matter of U.S. v. Mason, Case No. 02-14020. This was a criminal contempt case based upon alleged violations of a sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction rendered in Civil Case No. 99-14027, S.D. Fla, U.S. District Donald L. Graham, presiding. See Information. The crime alleged here was that Mason filed motions with Judge Graham. This sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction was issued without the constitutionally mandated due process, or notice and opportunity to respond prior to its issuance. See Case Law on Pre-Filing Injunctions. AUSA, Robert Waters, successfully managed to prosecute a pro se Defendant based solely upon a clearly void sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction. Succinctly stated, the government framed Marcellus Mason. See Framed Web Page.
The government has aggressively sought to quell criticism of U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham. It appears that the First Amendment is not applicable when it comes to criticizing federal judges. “The assumption that respect for the judiciary can be won by shielding judges from published criticism wrongly appraises the character of American public opinion. For it is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions. And an enforced silence, however limited, solely in the name of preserving the dignity of the bench, would probably engender resentment, suspicion, and contempt much more than it would enhance respect.” Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 270-1 (1941).
On May 26, 2004, Robert Waters, Assistant United States Attorney, sought to modify an impending bond and set special conditions. See Motion To Amend.
In this case, Defendant has engaged in repeated instances of mass emailings to members of the legal community throughout the United States. These emails are derogatory to the Court and unsolicited by the recipients...More importantly, Defendant has entailed, by his own admissions, hundreds of thousands of communications to lawyers, judges, and his school professors, all demeaning and ridiculing the Court. Specifically, Judge Donald Graham, the de facto victim in Defendant’s contempt case (see Exhibits 2 and 3). Defendant is engaging in a systemic campaign of harassment and ridicule targeting a federal district court judge, while free on bond pending sentencing for contempt of court. As this behavior shows, Defendant has not refrained from the type of conduct that caused his contempt conviction, and clearly has violated and ignored the spirit, if not the letter, of his release under §3142...Wherefore, the United States of America respectfully requests this Court modify defendant’s conditions of release to insure the harassing and disrespectful behavior through use of the Internet cease or in the alternative, that Defendant be detained pending sentencing, as provided in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3143 (a).
The terms of probation were imposed on June 29, 2004 and included the following as a "special condition".
The defendant shall not possess or use a computer that contains an internal modem and/or possess an external modem, and shall not possess or use a computer with access to any on-line computer service at any location without the prior written approval of the Court. This includes any Internet service provider, bulletin board system, or any other public or private computer network. In addition, the defendant shall not possess or use any data encryption technique or program. The defendant shall consent to the U.S. Probation Officer conducting periodic unannounced examinations of his computer to ensure compliance with this condition. This does not preclude the defendant from using a computer for e-mail purposes to contact only family members.
See Probation Terms. Incidentally, this probation special term was particularly oppressive because Marcellus Mason, a Certified Novell Engineer, CNE, and a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, MCSE, made his living using the Internet as Computer Network Administrator. Essentially, Mason lost his right to work as Computer Network Administrator because of this alleged misdemeanor crime. The length of probation was 5 years. Moreover, the crime Mason was charged with, filing pleadings without Judge Graham's permission had nothing to do with the Internet.
On April 1, 2005, Frank Smith, U.S. Probation, decided to get into the act by violating Mason's probation:
Violation of Special Condition, by failing to limit his use of the internet to e-mail contact with his immediate family. On February 15,2005, the probationer e-mailed Jim Beaver at jimbeaver@sipence.com regarding the probationer's attempts to manage his website, secretlaw.com.
Violation of Special Condition, by failing to limit his use of the internet to e-mail contact with his immediate family. On February 23, 2005, the probationer used the internet to visit the website mmason.freeshell.org.
Violation of Special Condition, by failing to limit his use of the internet to e-mail contact with his immediate family. On February 24, 2005, the probationer used the internet to visit the website secretlaw.com.
Violation of Special Condition, by failing to limit his use of the internet to e-mail contact with his immediate family. On February 23, 2005, the probationer used the internet to visit the website mmason.freeshell.org.
If Judge Graham and his enablers were in compliance with the law, then why all the effort to stop the publication and criticism of their work?