| PERTINENT BACKGROUND
The Players:
Judge Donald Graham, U.S. District Court,
Southern District
p>
Maria Sorolis,
Esquire extraordinaire, Tampa Office
Case No. 99-14027
I originally filed
a lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida bearing CaseNo.99-14027-CIV-Graham. This case was ultimately assigned
to Judge Donald L. Graham.
This case has more than 1000docket entries on the Pacer System. The Defendant in this
case and all other related cases, the
Highlands County Board County
Commissioners, is a GOVERNMENT.
Highlands County is located 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: &p; “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 2pages. “Plaintiff shall correspond only with Defendants' counsel including any requests for
public records.” (DE #246), page 2 of 2 pages.
nbsp; “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), page 2 of 2pages. <> There are several things wrong with the foregoing directives, not
the least of which a Magistrate Judge can not issue an injunction
or a restraining order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The Magistrate deals with this legal problem
by referring to
his injunctions as "a pretrial
discovery issue and not an injunction
per se." In other words, the Magistrate is saying that he
can issue an injunction as
long as he does not call it an injunction. In other words the Magistrate can make a
mockery of the Congress and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Notwithstanding the
fact that a Magistrate can not issue an
injunction, the orders, (DE #201), page 2, (DE #246), page2 are also illegal
because I have First Amendment Right to petition the government and speak to the
government anytime I feel like it. I don't ever need a private for profit law firm's
permission to speak to the government or request Public
Records under,
Florida Law. The pertinent comments to Rule 4-4.2, R. Regulating Fla. Bar specifically states the following:
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.
I repeatedly and incessantly challenged the jurisdiction of the
court with respect to these illegal orders, (DE#201), page2, (DE#246), page2 , however, Judge Graham absolutely refused to
state where he got the legal authority to issue the orders in question. See for example, and note that this list is not collectively
exhausted, Case No. 99-14027 see Plaintiff’s motions and responses, (Doc.#200);(Doc. #239); (Doc. #262);(Doc. #264);(Doc. #284);(Doc.#334);(Doc. #509);(Doc. #515);(Doc. #526);(Doc. 554);(Doc. 632, pg.5);(Doc.#633);(Doc. 652);(Doc. 663); (Doc. 735); (Doc. 736); (Doc.738); (Doc. 783); (Doc. 787, pgs 2-3); (Doc. 810); (Doc. 812); (Doc.813); (Doc. 817); (Doc. 829), (Doc. 845);and the court’s orders: (DE#201), page2,(DE#246), page2,;(Doc.#279);(Doc.281);(Doc.#407, pg.2 );(Doc. #524);(Doc.#528);(Doc.#634);(Doc. 673);(Doc.744);(Doc.745);(Doc. 766);(Doc.791);(Doc.874, pg.2);(Doc.882, pgs. 1-2), (DE-890), (DE-928), and relevant Defendants’ responses and motions, (Doc.199); (Doc. 199);(Doc. 231);(Doc. 274);(Doc. 275); (Doc.348);(Doc. 511);(Doc. 559);(Doc. 639);(Doc. 646);(Doc.690); (Doc.823);(Doc. 834); (Doc. 838);(Doc. 841); (Doc.859). No Judge in the entire history of the United States
has ever directed that a non-lawyer must seek the permission of a
private for profit attorney in order to speak with his government
or request public records under Florida Law. It is axiomatic and
beyond debate that I have a First Amendment right to communicate
with my government even if both of us are embroiled
in bitter litigation. Who says so? There is an unlimited
amount of courts throughout the United States who have considered the
very issues raised by these illegal orders, (Doc. 201);(Doc. 246) and
each “disagrees” with the district court or the Graham/Lynch
duo. In fact Judge
Graham gave himself permission not to answer any inquiries about where
got the legal authority to issue these patently illegal orders, (DE#201), page2,(DE#246), page2 , by issued the following order disallowing from filing
any pleading asking where got the legal authority to issue such orders. See cases
and courts that think Judge Graham's "orders" are lawless
and contemptuous of our legal system.
Based
upon the Defendants' motions for sanctions in the form of dismissal, the
district court decided to dismiss my lawsuit because they alleged that I spoke
with my government and requested public records under Florida law
without first getting the permission of a private for profit law firm. See (DE#766), page2, page3, page4, and page5; Pdf
format (DE#791), page2. Pdf
format. I filed several appeals and writs in this
case seeking to get these illegal orders reversed, but
the Eleventh Circuit has decided to evade the issue and these
illegal orders each time. See Case No. 01-11305, order
denying relief, page2; Case No. 01-15754-A, order
denying relief; Case No. 00-16064-F, order
denying relief;
|
