HOME PAGE    JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS  JUNK LAW | FEDERAL MAGISTRATE OVERRULES THE FIRST AMENDMENT| UNDERMINE APPEAL RIGHT AND DISHONESTY | A TALE OF TWO APPEALS, SAME FACTS, DIFFERENT OUTCOME | JUDICIAL DISHONESTY DOCUMENTED| METHODS EMPLOYED TO CONCEAL THE MISCONDUCT OF JUDGE GRAHAM |

 


 

GOVERNMENT'S INFORMATION FILED IN CASE NO. 02-14020-CR-MOORE


Actual PDF Document

Beginning on or about September 20, 2001, and continuing to on or about November 1, 2002, 
in Highlands County, Dade county, and elsewhere, in the Southern District of Florida, 
the defendant, MARCELLUS M. MASON, Jr., did willfully and knowingly disobey 
and resist a lawful order of a Court of the United States, that is, the order issued 
by the Honorable Donald L. Graham, United States District Judge, on September 20, 2001, 
in the Southern District of Florida, in the case of Marcellus M . Mason v. Highlands County 
Board of County Commissioners, et al., Case Numbers:

99-14027-CIV-GRAHAM/LYNCH;
99-14042-CIV-GRAHAM/LYNCH;
99-14257-CIV-GRAHAM/LYNCH;
99-14314-CIV-GRAHAM/LYNCH;
00-14116-CIV-GRAHAM/LYNCH;
00-14201-CIV-GRAHAM/LYNCH;
00-14202-CIV-GRAHAM/LYNCH;
01-14074-CIV-GRAHAM/LYNCH/
01-14078-CIV-GRAHAM/LYNCH/
01-14230-CIV-GRAHAM/LYNCH;
01-14240-CIV-GRAHAM/LYNCH/
and
01-14310-CIV-GRAHAM/LYNCH

by repeatedly filing pleadings, motions, memoranda, and directly contacting other litigants  
in the above cited cases, after specifically being enjoined from and ordered not to file any  
such pleadings or contact other litigants by Court Order dated September20, 2001, in violation  
of Title 18, United States Code, Section  401(3) 

Docket Entry No. 6.

 

Background

The Government's Information references an injunction, or "pre-filing injunction", or "filing injunction", rendered by  U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham, Southern District of Florida, on September 20, 2001 in a civil case, #99-14027-CV-GRAHAM, Marcellus M. Mason, Jr. v. Highlands County Board of County Commissioners.  See Docket Entry No. 878.    This order was issued sua sponte, or on Judge Graham's own motion without notice to Marcellus Mason or Highlands County.  This injunction claims that eleven (11) lawsuits were filed by Mason.  (D.E. #878, pg. 3).  This order specifically states: “THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte.”  (D.E. #878, pg. 3;).  At this point, an appeal is pending having been filed on June 20, 2001.  Docket Entry No. 795.   In this same sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction Judge Graham makes a so-called "finding of bad faith". “It has become clear to the Court that Mason is proceeding in bad faith.. Such activity is in bad faith and will not be permitted by the Court.(D.E. #878, pg. 5, 6, “Bad Faith” section).  The terms of this sua sponte issued injunction is as follows.

 

1. Plaintiff Marcellus M . Mason is Permanently enjoined from filing any additional pleadings in case numbers 99-14027-CIV-GRAHAM, 00-14116-CIV-GRAHAM, 00-14201-CIV-GRAHAM, 00-14202- CIV-GRAHAM, 00-14240-CIV-GRAHAM, 01-14074-CIV-GRAHAM, 01-14078- CIV-GRAHAM, and 01-14230-CIV-GRAHAM or from filing any new lawsuit which relates in any way to Plaintiff Marcellus M . Mason's former employment and/or subsequent interactions with Defendants without first receiving permission from the Court, as set forth below. This injunction shall apply equally to any persons or entities acting at the behest, direction, or instigation, or in concert with Marcellus M . Mason.

2. Any request for permission to file a new lawsuit relating to the issues in the above captioned cases and/or Mason's former employment and/or subsequent interactions wit h Defendants SHALL be in the form of an application filed with the Clerk of Court and addressed to United States District Judge Donald L. Graham. This application shall consist of a one paragraph explanation of the issues in the proposed lawsuit, shall contain the names of all proposed parties and shall not exceed one page . The application shall not include any proposed pleadings.

  (D.E. #878, pg. 8)


 

ILLEGALITY OF SUA SPONTE ISSUED PRE-FILING INJUNCTION

This sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction has several legal infirmities which make it invalid or unlawful.

  1. This injunction was issued sua sponte or without notice and opportunity to respond prior to its issuance.  See mmason.freeshell.org/SuaSponte.htm.  
  2. This injunction makes a finding of bad faith under the "inherent authority" of courts.  The Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit have stated that "bad faith findings" require due process or notice and opportunity to respond prior to making the finding of bad faith.  See mmason.freeshell.org/badfaith.htm
  3. The matter was on appeal, consequently, Judge Graham lacked jurisdiction of the matter.  See mmason.freeshell.org/dishonesty.htm#JurisdictionLie 
  4. Judge Graham should have disqualified long before he rendered this sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction.  See mmason.freeshell.org/dishonesty.htm#IgnoreIssues Judge Graham intentionally misrepresented the amount of lawsuits that were filed by Mason. See mmason.freeshell.org/LawSuits.htm  
  5. Judge Graham himself, in response to lawsuit filed by Highlands County, Case No. 00-14240, seeking a pre-filing injunction, dismissed the lawsuit because he concluded that Mason had not filed anywhere near the amount of lawsuits that would justify granting a pre-filing injunction.  See Case No. 00-14240, Report and Recommendation, pg.3,"R&R"; and Judge Graham's order adopting the R&R.   ""However, at this point, none of those other cases have totally dismissed with prejudice. There are viable claims pending in those cases. * * * While there are other pending cases between these parties, there is nothing near the extent of the litigation which this Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals usually look for justifying injunctive relief."   

 

 

HOME PAGE